UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Negotating cultures : a case study of collaborative conversations between Japanese students learning.. Cahill, Neta Simpkins 2002-12-31

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2003-0066.pdf [ 3.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078229.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078229+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078229.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078229+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078229+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078229+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078229 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078229.txt
Citation
1.0078229.ris

Full Text

NEGOTATING CULTURES: A CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATIVE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN JAPANESE STUDENTS LEARNING ENGLISH PAIRED WITH AMERICAN STUDENTS LEARNING JAPANESE by Neta Simpkins C a h i l l B a c h e l o r s Degree i n Japanese R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , U n i v . o f W a s h i n g t o n , 1990  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER i o f ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES D e p a r t m e n t o f Language a n d L i t e r a c y E d u c a t i o n (TEACHING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia December 2002 © Neta Simpkins C a h i l l , 2002  standard  UBC Rare Books and Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form  Page 1 of 1  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the head o f my department or by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Department The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada  http://www.library.ubc.ca/spcoll/thesauth.htrnl  12/15/02  ABSTRACT Negotiated well in  interaction  researched  to  collaborative  studies  have  English  as  the  culturally  confined  second  language  learner  conversational  speakers or other account  identify  been a  among  to  language  strategies  populations working  of  balanced  possibilities  perspective  This  a  could  use  study  informal  American  four  to take  reveal  teacher  activity,  cultural  students  students  as  to attempt t a r g e t  c o m m u n i c a t i o n as  about  negotiated • language  learning  Japanese  learning and  English.  student  in  e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t was  f o r m s and  and  an  equally  t o p r e s e n t model  similarities  and  forms  differences  were  together.  Significant three  into  linguistically  i n t e r a c t i o n and  college  Japanese  conversational  explored  negotiated  simultaneously  responsible of  explored  four  with  Performing  English  .  between  paired  most  learning  native  interaction. This  surface  are  fails  more  been  However,  who  with  has.  which  interaction.  nonnative speakers.  scope  learners  basic  distribution  findings  from - the . p r e s e n t  categories. of  determined  the  utterances  for  First,  English  and  percentages each  the  data  revealed  Japanese of  first  participant,  study  in or  thus  each  fell the  actual  dyad  second giving  into  and  language a  clear  representation generated  of  the  amount  and  type  of  i n t h e i n f o r m a l d i a l o g s , and a l s o r e v e a l i n g  imbalances  both  i n q u a n t i t i e s of input  distribution  between . E n g l i s h  Japanese  participants  spoke . c o n s i d e r a b l y  partners,  and  and i n  Japanese'.'  less  and E n g l i s h f a r o u t w e i g h e d  than'  negotiated  requests,  requests,  as  well  self-correction,  revealing  an  corrections  in  of and  language  utterances  both  specific  (  positive  the i n t r i n s i c value  second language  were  i n the  of  and self-  dominance . o f and  requests  a  form  of  r e q u e s t s , .and  tallied  number  checks,  clarification  completion  conversations,  and l e x i c a l  and  modification  large  feedback  also  comprehension  checks,  languages,  and t e a c h i n g  expressed  the  as  in initiating  Participants  and  confirmation  unexpectedly  pronunciation,  learning  interaction,  other-correction,  other-completion  language  their  .  Regarding  •students  The  Japanese in i t s  usage.  feedback  being glaring  per p a r t i c i p a n t  language  American  language  compared, and  the  large  other-  American number  discussing  of  grammar,  gaps.  shared  their  experiences  own  t h a t took  perceptions place  conversation acquisition.  this  indicative  l e a r n i n g environment  partner  programs  the  i n t h e dyads  and e n t h u s i a s t i c r e s p o n s e s ,  motivation  of  may  evoked hold  in  Table o f Contents  Abstract Table List  . •  o f Contents  2.  . . .  l v  v  1  The P u r p o s e o f t h i s  1.2  Synopsis  Study  1  o f the Remaining Chapters  . . . . . .  Review o f E m p i r i c a l L i t e r a t u r e  2.2  Negotiation: Broadly  Defined  i n Negotiated  Research  5  7 . .,  N e g o t i a t i o n : i n Language L e a r n i n g  Research 2.2.1  i  ,v-±-ii  1.1  2.1.1  i  i_  .  Introduction  2.1  i  / ,  of Tables  Acknowledgments  1.  i  7 . .  Interaction  I n v o l v i n g NNS-NS &  .9 10 11  NNS-NNS P a r t i c i p a n t s 2.3 I n f o r m a l C o n v e r s a t i o n  .  .14  2.3.1  C o n v e r s a t i o n : A Means t o an End . . . . 14  2.3.2  N a t u r a l i s t i c Learning: Group a n d P a i r  16  work  2.3.3  Benefits of Unstructured Conversation  . 17  2.3.4  C r i t i c i s m of Unstructured Conversation  .19  2.3.5  A Positive A f f e c t i v e Climate  .20  2.4  2.4.1  3.  Sociocultural Considerations .....  20  Language S o c i a l i z a t i o n Through . . . . Cooperative M u l t i c u l t u r a l Learning•  21  Broader  R a t i o n a l e of the Present Study 3.1  N e g o t i a t e d " I n t e r a c t i o n : Gaps i n R e s e a r c h  3.2  Research Questions  28  3.2.1  R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n #1  29  3.2.2  R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n #2  31  3.2.3  R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n #3  .31  3.3  The  Site:  In Partnership to  3.3.2  Participants  3.3.3  The  3.3.4  Data C o l l e c t i o n  R e s u l t s and 4.1  Investigator  32  Exchange 34 . .  37  Procedures  38  Data A n a l y s i s 3.4.1  27  32  Promote C u l t u r a l  .3.4  ...  Methodology 3.3.1  4.  25  Audio  40 & Video Recordings  .  42  D i s c u s s i o n s of Research Questions: . . .  E x a m p l e s Found i n t h e D a t a  .  44 44  4.1.1  A d d i t i o n a l Communication  Strategies  . . 49  4.1.2  The Dominance o f E n g l i s h i n D i s c u s s i o n s . 5 0 & t h e P e r c e p t i o n s o f Language A b i l i t i e s  5.  Significant  Findings  59  5.1  Summary o f R e s u l t s  59-  5.2  Implications  f o r Future Research  62  5.3  Implications  f o r T e a c h i n g and L e a r n i n g  Bibliography  . . . .  .'  Appendixes  63  70  '. . '  A.  Coding A b b r e v i a t i o n s  C.  S a m p l e s o f Coded T r a n s c r i p t i o n s  74  and T e r m i n o l o g y . . . . . . . .  75 76  L i s t of Tables Table 1  Profiles  of P a r t i c i p a n t s  Table 2  Japanese - E n g l i s h  Table 3  Initiating  Table 4  M o d i f i c a t i o n - Data A n a l y s i s  Data A n a l y s i s  Negotiation  - Data A n a l y s i s  • . . 36 67 68 69  vxxx  Acknowledgments I  would  gratitude  like  to  take  home and a t UBC, o v e r  to  f u r t h e r my l e a r n i n g First,  and  ever  c o m m i t t e e • members, were  also  professors as  earlier  I struggled  Duff  your  am g r a t e f u l  that  an  kindness  pleasant, drive, All. freely  institution  kind,  I will those  miss who  of t h e i r  remembered,  demonstrated  and  caring  both  and  Shi, for  f o r . h e r . sage My  and D r . M a r g a r e t  and t h e n  Early,  both  more  thesis.  other  as  my  recently  I could not  and g u i d a n c e .  Likewise, I  and h i s e f f o r t s  spots. of B r i t i s h  f o r proving  is still place.  Columbia, i t s time  capable  Despite  the  and  of  again  being  three  a  hour  c o m i n g up t o Canada and UBC. participated  time  and e f f o r t s  as w i l l  much  my  I returned  Dr. L i n g  f o r Dr. L e e G u n d e r s o n ,  and i n s t r u c t o r s  immense  since  outlook.  o f my  to the University  students,  t h e way,  and e n c o u r a g i n g  completion  h e l p me g e t t h r o u g h some t o u g h  staff,  and  positive  on i n t h e p r o g r a m ,  have much a p p r e c i a t i o n  I  few y e a r s  extend  education.  supportive  toward  to  along  understanding,  Dr. P a t r i c i a  have managed w i t h o u t  to  and  present  incredibly  me  I t h a n k my a d v i s o r ,  patience her  the past  i n language  and f o r e m o s t ,  infinite  advice  opportunity  t o t h e many who have h e l p e d  at  her  this  my  i n my wiil  employer  flexibility  and .  research always a n d my  and  gave  so  be a p p r e c i a t e d co-workers,  fortitude  during  who my  absences. I  thank  received and  I  am  my  in this  Dinny,  Vancouver  life  grateful  understanding, you,  mother  to  and  father  through my  my  Jim,  love,  dear,  home away f r o m home.  other  t h e i r examples  husband,  encouragement,  f o r being  f o r the  dear  and  for  and his  education their  as  love,  unwavering  friendship.  friend,  I  well  • Thank as  my  - CHAPTER ONE -  1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Purpose o f t h i s This  study  Study  explored  negotiated  interaction  whose p a r t i c i p a n t s were a t r e l a t i v e p a r i t y t o each o t h e r , partners  i n an e f f o r t  would i n i t i a t e  output i n unstructured Additionally, English)  linguistic t o assess  i n dyads and c u l t u r a l  how s u c h  n e g o t i a t i o n sequences and m o d i f y conversational  t h e balance  situations.  o f language usage  was e x a m i n e d , a n d i n s t a n c e s  (Japanese and  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 s e q u e n c e s were c o m p a r e d i n e a c h l a n g u a g e and any,  f o r each i n d i v i d u a l significant  i n an e f f o r t  t o d e t e r m i n e what,  negotiation patterns  emerged.  and o p i n i o n s  unstructured Native  concerning  i f  Lastly,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were a s k e d t o d i s c u s s a n d e v a l u a t e experiences  group  t h e i r own  t h i s type o f  c o l l a b o r a t i v e language l e a r n i n g  activity.  J a p a n e s e s p e a k e r s l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h were p a i r e d  w i t h n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers l e a r n i n g Japanese t o d i s c u s s t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c u l t u r e s and c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y take  turns  s t e e r i n g t h e i r way t h r o u g h t h e i n t r i c a c i e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n i nboth t h e i r languages. student,  Performing  simultaneously  first  and second  as t e a c h e r and  e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t was e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e t o  a t t e m p t t a r g e t f o r m s and  to present  c o m m u n i c a t i o n as c u l t u r a l explored  together.  of c o n v e r s a t i o n analyzed  similarities  Informal  and  of  d i f f e r e n c e s were  d i a l o g s between the  p a r t n e r s , were r e c o r d e d ,  coded,  four pairs and  f o r examples of n e g o t i a t i o n i n i n f o r m a l ,  structured interaction Personal  experience  p a i r i n g s of students years,  model forms  along  i n both and  non-  languages.  observations  of  similar  i n c o n v e r s a t i o n programs over  with anecdotal  e v i d e n c e and  scores  the  of  program  e v a l u a t i o n s t o u t i n g the b e n e f i t s of such i n t e r a c t i o n s p r o m p t e d me.to t a k e these  a c l o s e r look at the a c t u a l l e a r n i n g  and  teaching  the  s h o r t c o m i n g s s u c h a r r a n g e m e n t s may  despite a wealth  p a r t n e r s h i p s are  of research  capable have.  exploring  (NNS)  have l o o k e d particular  -  few  i t pertains to  non-native studies  this  s i t u a t i o n or p o p u l a t i o n of language l e a r n e r s .  Such i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d be  very  significant  l a n g u a g e p r o g r a m s , f a c i l i t a t o r s , and learners to achieve interaction  second  i n helping  language  t h e maximum b e n e f i t s f r o m o n e - o n - o n e  i n a balanced  relevant a c t i v i t i e s curricula  However,  (NS)  o r NNS-NNS a r r a n g e m e n t s , v e r y i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n as  as'  negotiated  i n t e r a c t i o n i n i t s v a r i o u s n a t i v e speaker speaker  o f , as w e l l  and  c o u l d be  p o s i t i v e manner. arranged,  protocols  c o u l d be b e t t e r d e v e l o p e d , and  the  More or  educational  l e g i t i m a c y o f programs w h i c h a r e o f t e n v i e w e d as e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r o r o n e - s i d e d i n ' f a v p r o f ESL s t u d e n t s be  reevaluated  and f u r t h e r promoted t o b e n e f i t  participants, to a greater conversation be m i s s i n g  partner  could  both  d e g r e e . As i t s t a n d s now, many  o r c o m m u n i t y i n t e r a c t i o n p r o g r a m s may  an o p p o r t u n i t y  t o improve t h e success of t h e i r  a c t i v i t i e s b e c a u s e few s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d t o d a t e to provide  recommendations o r proven g u i d e l i n e s f o r  success. Significant  f i n d i n g s from t h e present  three basic categories. actual distribution and  First,  the data  fell  into  revealed the  o f E n g l i s h and Japanese i n each dyad  determined the percentages of f i r s t  utterances  study  o r second  language  f o r each p a r t i c i p a n t , thus g i v i n g a c l e a r  representation  o f t h e amount a n d t y p e o f l a n g u a g e  g e n e r a t e d i n t h e i n f o r m a l d i a l o g s , and a l s o  being  revealing  g l a r i n g imbalances both i n ' q u a n t i t i e s of input per participant and  and i n l a n g u a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n b e t w e e n  Japanese.  difficult  Without t h i s data,  i t w o u l d be  t o asce.rtain the true l e v e l  English  very  o f . participât i o n a n d  b a l a n c e o c c u r r i n g i n p a i r work, a n d t h e b e n e f i t s o r s h o r t c o m i n g s i n d i v i d u a l s may h a v e b e e n The careful  experiencing.  second relevant" c o n t r i b u t i o n t h i s look at negotiated  study  offers i s a  i n t e r a c t i o n as i t o c c u r r e d i n  initiation  of n e g o t i a t i o n  sequences through  checks, feedback requests, clarification the  requests,  as w e l l as  and  other-completion.  of these u t t e r a n c e s categories  representing  and  widely  instances  to the  Again, the  J a p a n e s e and  a c t u a l number  using  for  fairly  negotiation  t h i s data might  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p a r t i c u l a r  emerged i n t h e  performance of  c o r r e c t i o n s w h i c h showed an u n u s u a l l y  proportion  o f c o r r e c t i o n s when c o m p a r e d w i t h  p r e s e n t e d i n a s t u d y by (1982) o f i n f o r m a l  Chun, Day,  conversations  the  high results  C h e n o w e t h , and b e t w e e n NSs  and  self-  Luppescu NNSs.  s t u d y c o n c l u d e d t h a t e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n s made by  were r e l a t i v e l y  r a r e , and  factual error.  Many o f t h e  u s u a l l y occurred corrections  s e l f - or o t h e r - c o r r e c t i o n s  vocabulary, research  first  of n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n .  other  explicit  in  completion  E n g l i s h i n both  h o p e d t h a t by  S h i , 1998)  greater  Distinct patterns  that  language m o d i f i c a t i o n  accepted categories  ( D o u g h t y & P i c a , 1986; contribute  and  were f u r t h e r b r o k e n down i n t o  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s . I t was  standard  and  checks,  form of s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n , o t h e r - c o r r e c t i o n ,  requests,  and  confirmation  comprehension  may  and.grammar.  The  in  when t h e r e  due  i n part  to the  t h e s e d y a d s and  the  resultant reduction  NSs  was  a  I o b s e r v e d were pronunciation,  r e s u l t s of the  be  the  present  c o l l a b o r a t i v e aspect i n concern  for  of  "face".  Concern f o r e t i q u e t t e and ego may have b e e n  r e p l a c e d by a m u t u a l d e s i r e t o b e n e f i t from t h e o t h e r ' s s t a t u s as e x p e r t w h i l e c o m m i s e r a t i n g s t r u g g l e s as s e c o n d Lastly,  the t h i r d ,  findings i n this themselves  language  w i t h one  learners.  and p e r h a p s most i m p o r t a n t  s t u d y ' came d i r e c t l y  group o f  from t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s  as t h e y r e l a t e d t h e i r u n i q u e  and h i g h l y r e l e v a n t  perspectives•on the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y experiences  another's  and t h e  and p e r c e p t i o n s t h e y remembered t h r o u g h t h e  stimulated recall  sessions afterwards.  T h e r e were many  c o n s t r u c t i v e suggestions t o improve the c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r p r o c e s s , and many p o s i t i v e  comments  about t h e  experience.  1.2  Synopsis o f the Remaining Chapters The f o l l o w i n g  i s a brief  synopsis of the remaining  c h a p t e r s and t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n .  Chapter  2 will  present a  r e v i e w o f e m p i r i c a l ' s t u d i e s d i v i d e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s : negotiated interaction, NNS  which  a n d NNS-NS g r o u p i n g s ;  activities will activities. broader  then  i s further divided into  NNS-  informal conversational  be c o m p a r e d t o s t r u c t u r e d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  The c h a p t e r w i l l  sociocultural  end w i t h an o v e r v i e w  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a s w e l l as an  argument f o r t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e p r e s e n t  study.  of  Chapter 3 presents outlining  the c u r r e n t study,  gaps i n p r e v i o u s  main r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s  research,  following  items  including  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e and  analysis w i l l  t h e n be  f o l l o w e d by t h e  are addressed: site,  the  methodology,  collection.  reliability,  and  implications applications.  The  F i n d i n g s and  examples  data  summary o f t h e r e s u l t s ,  f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h and  of  of  discussion follow  Chapter 4 f o r each of the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s . a final  study.  introduced along with d e f i n i t i o n s  t r a n s c r i p t i o n s w i t h coding'.  presents  three  participants,  procedures f o r data  coding markers, i n t e r r a t e r  in  by  which form the b a s i s of t h i s  Next, the  investigator,  first  tables,  pedagogical  Chapter and  5  - CHAPTER TWO  2.0 Review o f E m p i r i c a l The  goal of t h i s  -  Literature  study  i s t o explore  negotiated  i n t e r a c t i o n and language use between A m e r i c a n learning  students  Japanese p a i r e d w i t h Japanese students l e a r n i n g  E n g l i s h when t h e y a r e p l a c e d i n an i n f o r m a l s e t t i n g a n d encouraged t o a s s i s t cultural  each o t h e r i n a c q u i r i n g l a n g u a g e and  knowledge w h i l e i n t e r a c t i n g  i n unstructured .  c o n v e r s a t i o n s ' o f t h e i r own m a k i n g u s i n g w h i c h e v e r they p r e f e r . definitions aspects  This chapter w i l l  languages  e x a m i n e t h e many  of n e g o t i a t i o n , then w i l l  discuss various  o f group o r p a i r work i n f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l  conversational  s i t u a t i o n s . A review  negotiated interaction'among conversational a c t i v i t i e s , be p r e s e n t e d . findings w i l l  Lastly,  o f r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h on  NNS-NNS a n d NNS-NS, a n d  both  f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l , w i l l  t h e e f f e c t s o f g r o u p s o r p a i r s on  be c o n s i d e r e d .  2.1 N e g o t i a t i o n : B r o a d l y D e f i n e d The  o r i g i n a l , term  ' n e g o t i a t i o n ' , by d e f i n i t i o n h a s  a s s o r t e d l a y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w h i c h add depth when r e f l e c t e d  and r e l e v a n c e  i n the interpretations assigned t o  'negotiation'  in Applied Linguistics.  Webster's d i c t i o n a r y ,  the verb  According to  ' n e g o t i a t e ' means:  t o c o m m u n i c a t e o r c o n f e r w i t h a n o t h e r so  as  t o a r r i v e a t a s e t t l e m e n t o f some m a t t e r : meet w i t h a n o t h e r so as t o a r r i v e  through  d i s c u s s i o n a t some k i n d o f a g r e e m e n t o r compromise about to deal with  something:  come t o terms...  (some m a t t e r o r a f f a i r  requires a b i l i t y  that  for i t s successful  h a n d l i n g ) :' manage, h a n d l e ,  conduct:  a r r a n g e f o r or b r i n g about  through  to  c o n f e r e n c e and d i s c u s s i o n : work o u t o r ' a r r i v e a t o r s e t t l e upon by m e e t i n g s a g r e e m e n t s and  compromise: t o  and  influence  s u c c e s s f u l l y i n a d e s i r e d way  by  discussions  and a g r e e m e n t s and c o m p r o m i s e : t o or a s s i g n to another b y d e l i v e r y  transfer or  endorsement or b o t h i n r e t u r n f o r e q u i v a l e n t value... t o s u c c e s s f u l l y g e t o v e r o r a c r o s s (as a road)  o r up o r down  (as an o b s t a c l e ) : of and  (as p r o b l e m ,  to encounter  challenge) with  satisfaction:  complete,  (as a h i l l )  tackle  or  and  through  dispose  completeness  successfully:  accomplish... (Gove,  1986) .  As  the term  acquisition,  ' n e g o t i a t i o n ' p e r t a i n s t o second  there  language  a r e many a d d i t i o n a l n u a n c e s a n d  interpretations to consider,  but the t a n g i b l e  personal  rewards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s u c c e s s f u l l y overcoming a challenge,  whether s m a l l or l a r g e , i n second  communication, should vernacular  n o t be f o r g o t t e n when t h e l i n g u i s t i c  a p p l i e s t h e word t o a s p e e c h a c t ' o r  point.  2.1.1  language  grammar  .  N e g o t i a t i o n : i n Language L e a r n i n g  Starting  from a broad, m a c r o l e v e l  n e g o t i a t i o n occurs  perspective,  within conversational situations  pragmatically regarding  speakers'  b e l i e f s and  background a t t i t u d e s , understanding  of context,  and  f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h how l a n g u a g e c a n be m a n i p u l a t e d applied. content use  Semantically  speaking,  and  negotiation of  and meaning has been i d e n t i f i e d t h r o u g h t h e  of s p e c i f i c patterns of requests  and v a l i d a t i o n s .  S y n t a x comes i n t o p l a y when s p e a k e r s n e g o t i a t e o r e x c h a n g e grammar r u l e s e i t h e r i m p l i c i t l y , o r explicitly,  while morphological  negotiation i s evident  when s p e a k e r s d i s c u s s and r e p a i r l a n g u a g e a t t h e l e v e l i n v o l v i n g word f o r m a t i o n  and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  look a t language n e g o t i a t i o n r e v e a l s processes  A closer in  which phonetics corrected, speech  and phonology  a r e adapted or  including pronunciation  sounds.  T a k e n as a w h o l e ,  and p a t t e r n s o f n e g o t i a t i o n i n SLA  o f f e r s a broad range o f i n v e s t i g a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s (Nakahama, T y l e r , & v a n L i e r ,  2001).  2.2 I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Research i n N e g o t i a t e d Research i n both formal  and i n f o r m a l l e a r n i n g  e n v i r o n m e n t s h a s shown n e g o t i a t e d significant, acquisition 2001;  interaction  (Pica,  S h i , 1998).  Young, & D o u g h t y , 1 9 8 7 ; Nakahama e t a l . , N e g o t i a t i o n i n second  taking  from t h e  e n d o f t h e s c a l e w i t h s p e c i f i c s t o do w i t h  pronunciation general  language  a n d c a n be v i e w e d w i t h a  spectrum of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ranging  microscopic  t o a wider,  macroscopic p o s i t i o n i n v o l v i n g  s t e e r i n g o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t o p i c s , tone, and t u r n (Nakahama e t a l . , 2 0 0 1 ) .  The f o l l o w i n g i s a r e v i e w  of t h e l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g t o n e g o t i a t e d divided  t o have a  t h o u g h v a r i e d , i n f l u e n c e on l a n g u a g e  i n t e r a c t i o n has broad r e l e v a n c e wide  Interaction  interaction  i n t o NNS-NS a n d NNS-NNS c a t e g o r i e s b a s e d on t h e  arrangement  and backgrounds  S e c t i o n 2.3 w i l l  o f p a r t i c i p a n t s i n each s t u d y .  look'at research  conversational settings.  i n formal  and i n f o r m a l  2.2.1  Research I n v o l v i n g NNS-NS & NNS-NNS P a r t i c i p a n t s  A broad discourse  'global'.' a p p r o a c h t o c a t e g o r i z i n g  s e q u e n c e s was one o f s e v e r a l  content and  tactics  q u a n t i t a t i v e l y documented i n a r e c e n t c o m p a r a t i v e of  information  interaction,  gap a c t i v i t i e s  and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  which separated,  identified,  and t a l l i e d  specific  'triggers/ f o r repair negotiations.  triggers  involved  deixis, that  "Global  elements such as a n a p h o r i c  reference,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f an e n t i r e u t t e r a n c e ,  can cause a r e a n a l y s i s  analysis  and elements  o f more t h a n one t u r n "  (Nakahama e t a l . , 2 0 0 1 , p p . 3 8 4 - 3 8 5 ) . Far  removed f r o m t h e e f f e c t s o f g l o b a l  negotiation,  negotiation  pronunciation an  of the finer points of  c a n a l s o be e x a m i n e d .  example o f a p r o n u n c i a t i o n  the  Nakahama e t a l . s t u d y Sumiko Rita  (NNS) :  (NS) : •  Sumiko:  and r e p a i r  The f o l l o w i n g i s  t r i g g e r and r e p a i r  (2001, p . 3 8 5 ) : . Preschool...?  [prEskul]  Pre-school...?  [priskul]  Pre-school.  [priskul]  E v e n i n a NS-NNS c o m b i n a t i o n , one c a n assume the feel for  from  pressure i s considerably  l e s s than a student  that would  i f s i n g l e d out by a teacher i n front o f the c l a s s correction. The  r e s u l t s o f t h e Nakahama e t ' a l .  study revealed  that  in conversational  activities,  repair negotiations specific and  of a l l  employed g l o b a l t r i g g e r s , versus  i n d i c a t o r s " s u c h as p r o n u n c i a t i o n ,  lexical  25.6%  an a v e r a g e o f 76%  more  morphosyntactic,  t r i g g e r s . However, t h i s p e r c e n t a g e d r o p p e d  i n the  information  gap  activities,  dominant need of t h a t a c t i v i t y s p e c i f i c and  o s t e n s i b l y due  t o compare and  c o - r e l a t i o n a l d a t a , as :  to to  gather  represented  by  a  55%  average of l e x i c a l t r i g g e r s . NSs  and  NNSs i n t e r a c t i o n was  C h e n o w e t h , and  Luppescu  e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n s by usually occurred discourse rarely  and  (1982) t h e  t h e NSs  when t h e r e  vocabulary  e x a m i n e d by conclusion  were r e l a t i v e l y was  made t h a t  rare,  and  a f a c t u a l e r r o r , then  w e r e r e v i s e d , t h o u g h grammar  g a t h e r e d from a v a r i e t y of a d u l t  v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f E n g l i s h f l u e n c y as t h e y informal recorded speaking  responsible recorded  conversations  friends outside  restrictions  15  was  Day,  was  corrected.  D a t a was  the  Chun,  on  the  with native  English,  classroom.  T h e r e were  taping.  t h e NNS  e r r o r s and  was  analyzed  to determine  the percentage of  made when s p e a k i n g  no were  T w e n t y p a i r s were  f o r about twenty minutes each time,  hours of d i s c o u r s e  c o r r e c t i o n s NSs  the  with  conducted  t o p i c s f o r d i s c u s s i o n , and  for conducting  twice,  number o f NNS  of the  subjects  then the  error  w i t h t h e i t NNS  friends.  The f i n d i n g s showed t h a t o n l y corrected.  8.9% o f NNSs' e r r o r s were  I t i s also significant  t o note that t h e  p e r c e n t a g e o f e r r o r s t h a t were c o r r e c t e d d e c r e a s e d 13.4%  f o r beginning  students  with  level  advances  students  t o only  ESL a b i l i t i e s ,  3.0% f o r  a n d t h a t most  c o r r e c t i o n s were r e l a t e d t o f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n this  from  error  and t h a t  c o u l d be. due t o t h e p o s s i b l e c o n s t r a i n t s o f s o c i a l  etiquette regarding relative  stranger's  the impropriety mistakes.  However, a c o m p a r i s o n  study  b e t w e e n NNS-NNS p e e r  and NS ( t e a c h e r ) - N N S b y S h i (1998) interaction requests,  features  error'correction, negotiated  examined  such as comprehension  clarification  as w e l l a s i n s t a n c e s  of correcting a  requests,  group  negotiated checks,  feedback  and c o n f i r m a t i o n  checks,  o f speech m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g  t o a s c e r t a i n t h e l e v e l s and t y p e s o f  i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e i r  Three NS(teacher)-NNS  frequencies.  g r o u p s a n d NNS-NNS p e e r  group  d i s c u s s i o n s were a u d i o t a p e d , t r a n s c r i b e d , a n a l y z e d ,  and  compared.  The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t w h i l e  NS(teacher-NNS  instances  o f n e g o t i a t i o n were n o t as f r e q u e n t  as i n t h e  peer groups, t h e t e a c h e r - l e d accurate  more  l a n g u a g e m o d e l i n g o f E n g l i s h t h a n t h e NNS-NNS  groups and a l s o p r o v i d e d instances  i n t e r a c t i o n s provided  of negotiation.  more i n d e p t h a n d e x t e n d e d Student feedback i n d i c a t e d that  value  was  students  placed  perceived  productive  explored  vested  both a c t i v i t i e s  these f i n d i n g s , the i s w h e t h e r NSs  i n t e r e s t i n sharing  who  are  and  not  t h a t begs  teachers,  but  teacher  l e d groups i n S h i ' s . s t u d y  have a  i n t e r a c t i o n as (1998),  the  or whether  they  i n t o t h e p a t t e r n o f NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t  e t a l . (1982)  to  l a n g u a g e s w i t h NNSs, w o u l d  s i m i l a r types of n e g o t i a t e d  2.3  meaningful  next question  achieve  would f a l l  t o be  that  f o r l e a r n i n g languages.  B a s e d on be  on b o t h m e t h o d s o f i n t e r a c t i o n , and  Chun  observed.  Informal C o n v e r s a t i o n Spontaneous c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n  provides  an o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r second language development  and  c u l t u r a l e x c h a n g e i n a more n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t , w i t h r e d u c e d a f f e c t i v e f a c t o r s and (Richards, research formal on  1980).  w h i c h has  The  g r e a t e r • i n d i v i d u a l autonomy  following sections w i l l  examine  taken a c l o s e r look at i n f o r m a l  conversational  i n t e r a c t i o n and  the  and  resultant effects  negotiation.  2.3.1  C o n v e r s a t i o n : A Means to an The  End  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the v e r b a l a c t i v i t y  negotiated  i n t e r a c t i o n i s fundamentally  identified  derived  from  the  as  belief  t h a t language, whether  humanistic, Pietro,  the  socially driven tool  1987).  catalyst  native or non-native, i s a  The need  f o r communication (Di  t o exchange  information  f o r human c o n v e r s a t i o n ; h o w e v e r , c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n  form of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n  b e n e f i t d e r i v e d from l e a r n i n g be a s i g n i f i c a n t itself.  isa  i s not only a  languages but i s p u r p o r t e d t o  i n f l u e n c e on t h e l a n g u a g e  development  Vygotsky a s s e r t s t h a t second language  learners  a c t u a l l y develop .specific c o g n i t i v e processes, or regulation, directly  through conversing with other i n d i v i d u a l s , a f f e c t i n g development  t a r g e t language  ( V y g o t s k y , 1978, 1 9 8 6 ) .  by C a r o l l a n d S w a i n explored this  and p e r f o r m a n c e  i n the  Additional  (1992, 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d v a n L i e r  thus  studies  (198.8)  concept f u r t h e r t o assess c o r r e c t i v e  have  feedback  and c o l l a b o r a t i o n p r o c e s s e s b e t w e e n n o v i c e s a n d e x p e r t s i n the  t a r g e t language  (1994)  (Lantolf,  identified this  development  2000).  A l j a a f r e h and L a n t o l f  s o c i o c u l t u r a l approach t o language  a s " t h e s t u d y o f how m e d i a t i o n a l means a r e  a p p r o p r i a t e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l  as a r e s u l t o f d i a l o g i c  i n t e r a c t i o n with other i n d i v i d u a l s  (p.467)."  The a u t h o r s  t h e n went on t o c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h m e d i a t i o n i s c r i t i c a l for  f e e d b a c k t o be r e l e v a n t a s a f o r m o f r e g u l a t i o n  (Aljaafreh  & Lantolf,  1994, p. 4 8 0 ) , v a l i d a t i n g t h e  i m p o r t a n c e o f s m a l l g r o u p o r p a i r work, a s t h e f o l l o w i n g  1  research  2.3.2  points  out.  Naturalistic Pedagogically  L e a r n i n g through Group and speaking,  Brown  p a i r work as a " m u l t i p l i c i t y more s t u d e n t s  are assigned  c o l l a b o r a t i o n and  (1994) d e f i n e s g r o u p  of techniques  a task that  self-initiated  P a i r work or  i n w h i c h two  or  involves  language"  (p.173).  Numerous s t u d i e s t o u t t h e b e n e f i t s o f g r o u p o r p a i r work i n the  classroom  as an o p p o r t u n i t y  and  p a r t i c i p a t i o n on  & P o r t e r , 1985).  for increased  the p a r t of i n d i v i d u a l  I n an e f f o r t  to achieve  students  t h a t "the  (1984, p . 8 7 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n o r d e r  t r u l y n a t u r a l language, such c o n v e r s a t i o n s outside  use  g r o u p work i s t h e o n l y a v a i l a b l e b a s i s f o r  n a t u r a l i s t i c behavior ,in c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n class..."  (Long  a natural  l i n g u i s t i c environment, Brumfit maintains p a i r and  production  of the classroom  c o m m u n i t y and  social  l a n g u a g e e x p o s u r e and (Rivers, Klein  1983) .  to  develop  must  occur  through o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  involvement,  which n o u r i s h  d e v e l o p m e n t i n an  .  target  informal  setting  . •-  (1986) a r g u e s t h a t f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , i n  naturalistic  language l e a r n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l t o  u n d e r s t a n d second•'language a c q u i s i t i o n . s p o n t a n e o u s l e a r n i n g may  in '  reveal processes  fully  Studies spared  of the  of  inherent side e f f e c t s of contrived l i n g u i s t i c found i n t y p i c a l  classroom a c t i v i t i e s .  suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y  situations  Furthermore,  Klein  t h a t l e a r n e r s may even h a r b o r an  underlying resistance to formalized instruction further research i n n a t u r a l i s t i c  language  which  settings  could  reveal. However, r e a l i t y d i c t a t e s t h a t many l e a r n e r s o f a second  l a n g u a g e may n o t h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o engage i n  spontaneous due  and' n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h n a t i v e  t o g e o g r a p h i c a l and c u l t u r a l  isolation,  i n which  t h e f o r m a l c l a s s r o o m s e t t i n g may be t h e o n l y avenue o f l e a r n i n g a v a i l a b l e on t o p o s i t : ... b e c a u s e not kinds  classrooms that  conducted  be valued  important situations  Benefits  occur  and schools,  research  should  2.3.3  distinguishable,  of learning  than (p.  Johnson  goes  •  n a t u r a l i s t i c and tutored  completely  case  realistic  (Johnson, 1992).  '  speakers  are  and because  both  i n s i d e and outside there  is l i t t l e  in informal  as more basic research  learning  reason environments  and thus  conducted  of  in  more formal  12)..  of Unstructured Conversations  W h i l e t h e statement by Johnson  i n the previous section  r e f l e c t s a p o s i t i o n t h a t has been f a i r l y research,  the study  compelling  standard  i n SLA  by Nakahama e t a l . (2001) a l s o  revealed  e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t b o t h t h e q u a l i t y and  q u a n t i t y o f n e g o t i a t i o n sequences and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r l a n g u a g e u s e were g r e a t e r Their discourse activities  i n unstructured  a n a l y s i s compared t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  o f NS-NNS d y a d s b o t h q u a l i t a t i v e l y a n d  q u a n t i t a t i v e l y as t h e y  n e g o t i a t e d meaning i n b o t h a  s t r u c t u r e d i n f o r m a t i o n gap a c t i v i t y unstructured designed  and a  conversational activity.  relatively  The d i a l o g s w e r e  t o approximate n a t u r a l conversation  to a s c e r t a i n the types and  conversations.  i n an a t t e m p t  of l e a r n i n g opportunities a v a i l a b l e  t h e means by w h i c h n e g o t i a t i o n may t a k e p l a c e  s u c h a c t i v i t i e s . • The c o n v e r s a t i o n  within  gap a c t i v i t y was a  t y p i c a l p r o b l e m s o l v i n g t a s k i n v o l v i n g two p i c t u r e s containing s i m i l a r i t i e s  and d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s  were a s k e d t o v e r b a l l y compare. support  the value  conversation,  The f i n d i n g s n o t o n l y  of further research  but a l s o maintain  that controlled a c t i v i t i e s ,  s u c h a s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n gap p r e s e n t e d , and  l e s s complete utterances  more c o m p l e x d i s c o u r s e s conversations  of n a t u r a l i s t i c  result  when c o m p a r e d t o t h e r i c h e r ,  obtained  from  unfettered  (Nakahama, T y l e r , & v a n L i e r ,  Such r e s e a r c h  i n shorter  2001).  not only p o i n t s t o the b e n e f i t s - o f  informal conversation  i n second language e d u c a t i o n , but  v a l i d a t e s t h e n e e d f o r l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s and e d u c a t o r s seek access  to  t o a u t h e n t i c i n t e r a c t i o n and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r  exposure i n the t a r g e t language, i n a d d i t i o n t o expounding on o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s p o n t a n e o u s l e a r n i n g i n t h e c l a s s r o o m .  2.3.4  Criticism  o f U n s t r u c t u r e d Conversations  A n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e on i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s NSs  and NNSs c a n be f o u n d i n t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d  Chun e t a l . (1982) i n w h i c h t h e a u t h o r s c o r r e c t i o n s b y t h e NSs were r e l a t i v e l y  r e s e a r c h by  conclude  that error  r a r e , and u s u a l l y  o c c u r r e d when t h e r e was a f a c t u a l e r r o r , vocabulary  between  then  were r e v i s e d , t h o u g h grammar was  d i s c o u r s e and  rarely  corrected. The  r e s e a r c h e r s went o n t o p o i n t o u t t h e p o s s i b l e  constraints of social  etiquette regarding the impropriety  of c o r r e c t i n g a r e l a t i v e researchers solely  t o take  stranger's mistakes  and c a u t i o n e d  c a r e w i t h l a b o r a t o r y formed dyads used  f o r the purpose o f generating  data,  as t h e language  o b t a i n e d may n o t be " n a t u r a l " i n t h e s e n s e d e s i r e d . The q u e s t i o n a l s o r e m a i n s , what do t h e NNSs a c t u a l l y l e a r n f r o m these c o r r e c t i o n s ?  2.3.5 A P o s i t i v e A f f e c t i v e C l i m a t e Besides and  promoting increased  interaction,  significantly can 1985,  student  output  s t u d i e s have shown t h a t g r o u p o r p a i r work  reduces the negative  affective  f a c t o r s which  impede l e a r n i n g a n d s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n (Long & P o r t e r , p. 2 1 1 ) . T h i s more i n t i m a t e e n v i r o n m e n t i s l e s s  i n t i m i d a t i n g than performing students and  individual  i n front of a class f u l l of  with the authority figure,  judging  every  utterance.  the teacher,  measuring  I n a d y a d composed o f NS/NNS-  NNS/NS, n e i t h e r h a s t h e u p p e r h a n d o r i s more o f an e x p e r t than the other.  B o t h have c o m p a r a b l e s t r e n g t h s a n d  weaknesses, and t h e stigma faltering  out.and p o s s i b l y  i s usually less frightening.  ready access motivation  of speaking  In addition to  t o comprehensible i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n ,  h a s b e e n shown t o be g r e a t e r , a n d more l a n g u a g e  practice opportunities are a v a i l a b l e i n p a i r or small work  group  (Long & P o r t e r , 1 9 8 5 ; S t e v i c k , 1996) .  2.4 Broader S o c i o c u l t u r a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s Universities  and c o l l e g e s . t h r o u g h o u t  a t t r a c t and r e c r u i t provide  the United  i n t e r n a t i o n a l students  greater educational  States  i n an e f f o r t t o  o p p o r t u n i t i e s , t o promote  g l o b a l i z a t i o n and d i v e r s i t y o f i d e a s , and t o g e n e r a t e revenue.  Most s c h o o l s p r o v i d e  o r a r r a n g e f o r t h e ESL  i n s t r u c t i o n necessary to bring proficiency that w i l l mainstream  courses.  international ESL  students.up to a l e v e l  a l l o w them t o f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y i n Until  such p r o f i c i e n c y  i s attained,  students o f t e n f i n d themselves  c l a s s r o o m i s o l a t i o n w i t h the burden  r e s t i n g on t h e i r  shoulders.  of  sequestered i n  assimilation  In t h e meantime,  regular  s t u d e n t s go on a b o u t  their college l i f e ,  to  l e a r n from these s t u d e n t s next  i n t e r a c t w i t h and  2.4.1  of  m i s s i n g the  chance door.  Language S o c i a l i z a t i o n Through C o o p e r a t i v e  Multicultural  Learning  C u l t u r e and  language  b a l a n c e o f power. language  are i n t e r t w i n e d . i n a s y m b i o t i c  To remove t h e c u l t u r a l  component f r o m a  study e l i m i n a t e s the v e r y fib'er which  t e x t u r e and d e p t h o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  Without  creates the  cultural  c o n t e x t s , w o r d s become mere l i n k s - i n a c h a i n , m e c h a n i c a l and  impersonal.  Brown  states,  "A s i n g l e s e n t e n c e c a n s e l d o m  be  fully  • without considering i t s context. as s t r e t c h e s o f d i s c o u r s e .  We  We  analyzed .  use  language  s t r i n g many  sentences t o g e t h e r i n c o h e s i v e u n i t s such sentences bear interrelationship..." Without to  (p. 1 8 9 ) .  c o n t e x t , he goes on t o s a y , i t w o u l d  c o m m u n i c a t e c l e a r l y due  that  be  difficult  to p o t e n t i a l ambiguity,  whether  in  speech or i n w r i t i n g . Context  is crucial.  variable. p o i n t by and  I t i s more t h a n  simply a  causal  S o c i o c u l t u r a l s t u d i e s - have h i g h l i g h t e d t h i s f o c u s i n g on t a s k and  activity  settings;  m e a n i n g ; on t a s k a c c o m p l i s h m e n t ; on  to i n d i v i d u a l Schieffelin,  c o g n i t i o n ; and 1984,  Duff,  a p p r e c i a t i o n i s now  on  content  precursors  e n c u l t u r a t i o n (Ochs &  1995).  being  social  on  Furthermore,  greater  given to m u l t i c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g s  as v a l u a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t s f o r s u c c e s s f u l l a n g u a g e socialization  (Barron,  "...if i t i s f e l t  1991).  worthwhile  t a r g e t language, i s i t not the  (L2) • As  students'  Collin  Barron  to i n c l u d e the c u l t u r e of just  as' w o r t h w h i l e  c u l t u r e (Barron,  1991,  f o r the b e n e f i t s of m u l t i c u l t u r a l  non-native  speakers' The  spoken  language  not  only  for  output  The  productive  native process 1994,  on  received,  but  the  e n t i r e process  use  of  second  is also  an  L2  and  a major  language  the  to include 174)?"  environments f o r Harklau  classrooms  a c q u i s i t i o n environments  speakers of  of mainstream  input and  p.  language a c q u i s i t i o n ,  evaluation  questions,  on  states: as  rests opportunities  of i n t e r a c t i o n . feedback component  from in  the  a c q u i s i t i o n (Harklau,  p.249) .  Cooperative  a c t i v i t i e s provide  the  ideal  environment  for mutually beneficial  l e a r n i n g t o take place.  According  to McGroarty,  "Research  on . c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g  i n settings  of l i n g u i s t i c  diversity  c o r r o b o r a t e s the advantages of  c o o p e r a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n shown i n s e t t i n g s where a l l students  s p e a k t h e same l a n g u a g e  g o e s on t o s t a t e t h a t ,  (1992,  and t h a t a s t u d y w i t h S p a n i s h  were f r e q u e n t ..." (p.  speaking  showed t h a t "... a c a d e m i c u s e o f t h e p r i m a r y s t u d e n t s m a s t e r E n g l i s h (p. Additional Reyes  McGroarty  "... r e p a i r s e q u e n c e s , where l e a r n e r s  n e g o t i a t e meaning between t h e m s e l v e s , 62),  p. 5 9 ) . "  students  language  helps  63)."  r e s e a r c h by D e l p i t  (1988) a n d De l a l u z  (1992) r e m i n d s us t h a t i n o r d e r f o r c o o p e r a t i v e  learning to flourish, possess  t e a c h e r s and f a c i l i t a t o r s  a commitment t o d i v e r s i t y ,  training  i n a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o r y and t e c h n i q u e s  achieve the desired r e s u l t s  speaker  demonstrated  communication s t r a t e g i e s , accent.  Hadley  i n order t o  ( 1 9 8 0 ) , have m e a s u r e d  r e a c t i o n t o nonnative  the i r r i t a t i n g  thorough  f o r all. students.  S t u d i e s by A l b r e c h t s e n e t a l . , native  as w e l l as  must  s p e e c h and h a v e  e f f e c t s o f c e r t a i n L2  including  (1993) i n s i s t s  i n t e r l a n g u a g e and  t h a t many A m e r i c a n  students  simply are not w e l l conditioned t o deal with f o r e i g n or cultures.  E t h n o c e n t r i c i t y breeds  that very reason,  ignorance,  people  and f o r .  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l e x c h a n g e and d i s c u s s i o n i s  critical  f o r b r o a d e n i n g a w a r e n e s s and p r o v i d i n g a much  needed o p p o r t u n i t y  for inter.cultural  interaction.  - CHAPTER THREE -  3.0 R a t i o n a l e o f the P r e s e n t Study Few  s t u d i e s have e x p l o r e d t h e b e n e f i t s a n d c h a l l e n g e s  o f a more b a l a n c e d ,  two-way a p p r o a c h t o s e c o n d  language  n e g o t i a t i o n i n which p a r t n e r s a r e a t approximately stages  o f development, i n each o t h e r ' s  exposure, thus as e x p e r t s  being  capable  and as l e a r n e r s  i n mind, I w i l l current study  now p r e s e n t  research questions t h e i r relevance,  typical  1994). With t h i s  the underpinnings  both  goal  of the research  f o l l o w e d by t h e t h r e e  main  I c h o s e t o e x p l o r e , an e x p l a n a t i o n o f  t h e methodology employed, f o l l o w e d by t h e  analysis, findings, The  dual roles,  s t a r t i n g w i t h gaps i n c u r r e n t  pertaining to this topic,  data  language and c u l t u r a l  of performing (Kachru,  equal  purpose o f t h i s  t a b l e s , and d i s c u s s i o n . study  ESL b i a s t h a t e x i s t s  i s t o e x p l o r e beyond t h e i n most s e c o n d  language  s t u d i e s b y f o c u s i n g on n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n i n d y a d s whose p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e a t r e l a t i v e p a r i t y t o each o t h e r .  Informal  linguistic  and c u l t u r a l  one h o u r l o n g d i a l o g s  between f o u r p a i r s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r s , each the other's  language and c u l t u r e ,  coded, and a n a l y z e d  have been  studying  recorded,-  f o r examples o f c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c  negotiation Native with  and i n t e r a c t i o n . J a p a n e s e s p e a k e r s l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h were teamed  n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers l e a r n i n g Japanese t o d i s c u s s  their  respective  c u l t u r e s and c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y t a k e  turns  s t e e r i n g t h e i r way t h r o u g h t h e i n t r i c a c i e s o f conversational languages. student,  i n t e r a c t i o n in'both  Performing simultaneously  first  and s e c o n d  as t e a c h e r  and  e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t was e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e t o 1  attempt t a r g e t  f o r m s and t o ' p r e s e n t  c o m m u n i c a t i o n as c u l t u r a l explored  their  model forms o f  similarities  a n d d i f f e r e n c e s , were  together.  Students' integral part  input, perceptions, of t h i s  process from s t a r t  research  to finish,  a n d f e e d b a c k were an  and were i n c l u d e d  i n the  r e s u l t i n g i n an a c t i v i t y  with  i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated p a r t i c i p a n t s sharing i n contextualized Screening intended  and p e r s o n a l l y  relevant  language  exchange.  p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e c o m p e t e n c i e s was to provide  a more l e v e l p l a y i n g  o f an a f f e c t i v e ' f i l t e r communication.  to i n t e r f e r e with  However, o n c e t h i s  field  with  less  natural  s t u d y was u n d e r w a y , i t  i  became o b v i o u s t h a t a more t h o r o u g h e v a l u a t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s a c t u a l language a b i l i t i e s achieve the d e s i r e d balance of language  was n e e d e d t o skills.  3.1  N e g o t i a t e d I n t e r a c t i o n : Gaps i n Research Research continues  negotiated  t o examine v a r i o u s a s p e c t s  i n t e r a c t i o n among l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s t o  c o m m o n a l t i e s and specifically  in collaborative conversational  use  of r e p e t i t i o n ,  and  c o r r e c t i o n s , t o name a few.  feedback requests,  been c o n f i n e d t o p o p u l a t i o n s second language. d i v e r s e and  Often  who  these  are  linguistically  and  studied include confirmation  the  checks,  l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as  and  cultural  i n i t s own  has a  c u l t u r a l l y balanced  origins.  right,  scope of p o s s i b i l i t i e s  r e v e a l about n e g o t i a t e d  interaction.  p a r t i c i p a n t s come f r o m  while b e n e f i c i a l  i n t o account the  surface  However, most r e s e a r c h  disparate l i n g u i s t i c  Such d i v e r s i t y ,  identify  r e l e v a n t l e a r n e r s t r a t e g i e s which  T a c t i c s w h i c h h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d and  take  of  fails  to  a more  perspective  could  interaction.  S c h o l a r l y evidence supports  the premise t h a t  second  language l e a r n e r s d e r i v e m u l t i p l e b e n e f i t s from c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e x p o s u r e t o and  negotiated  "experts",  i n the t a r g e t  (Ellis, Izumi,  or native- speakers,  1994;  Gass & V e r o n i s ,  Bigelow,  Fujiwara,  1985,  1996;  1987;  Swain,- 1985;  discoveries,  1984;  P i c a , 1988;. O h t a , 2001;  with  language  Izumi & Bigelow,  & Fearnow, 1999;  Young, 1984) .  interaction  Long,  2000;  1983,  P i c a , Young, & Doughty,.  Despite  t h a t fundamental essence of  these language,  communication  of meaning,  undervalued,  whether i n r e s e a r c h o r i n classroom  instruction 1994;  i s often overlooked or  (Chun, C h e n o w e t h , & L u p p e s c u , 1 9 8 2 ; K a c h r u ,  Klein,  1986).  S t u d i e s c o n t i n u e . t o l e a n toward t h e  mechanics o f language a c q u i s i t i o n , artificial  classroom  settings,  particularly  r a t h e r than  i n somewhat  naturally  o c c u r r i n g speech a c t s i n c a s u a l , l e s s c o n t r o l l e d  situations  (Nakahama e t a l . , 2 0 0 1 ) .  3.2 Research Questions D e s p i t e many a r t i c l e s  and s t u d i e s e x p l o r i n g p a i r  work,  i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s a n d n e g o t i a t i o n i n SLA, v e r y few studies'went  b e y o n d t h e NS-NNS o r NNS-NNS c o m b i n a t i o n s t o  include mutually aim  of this  compatible  language exchange.  s t u d y t o examine t h e i n s t a n c e s o f n e g o t i a t e d  i n t e r a c t i o n i n d y a d s w i t h somewhat c o m p a r a b l e skills  t o determine  the balance  as w e l l a s t h e s p e a k e r s , what l i n g u i s t i c expressed  how t h i s  and s o c i o c u l t u r a l exchanges a r e e v i d e n t as sessions.  The  form t h e b a s i s o f t h i s  be e x a m i n e d t o d e t e r m i n e  language l e a r n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s .  follows:  i s n e g o t i a t e d , and a l s o  during the stimulated r e c a l l  t h e s i s and w i l l  language  b e t w e e n t h e two l a n g u a g e s  following three research questions  in  I t i s the  their  significance  The q u e s t i o n s a r e a s  par tners  1) How do conversation other's modify  languages  i n i t i a t e negotiation  t h e i r own, or the other's  informal  spoken,  sequences  language  and  output  of Japanese  and  in  English.being  and how is t h i s r e f l e c t e d in the  modification  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perspectives  conversational describe  a c t i v i t y and how did they  t h e i r experiences  teaching  negotiation  sequences?  3) - What were  and  each  conversation?  2) What is the balance  and  f a m i l i a r with  through  on t h i s remember  and perceptions  the stimulated  of  recall  and  learning sessions  afterward?  3.2.1 Research Question #1 How do conversation languages  partners  i n i t i a t e negotiation  own, or the other's  language  f a m i l i a r with sequences output  in  each  other's  and modify informal  conversation? Conversational s i t u a t i o n s can vary c o n s i d e r a b l y d e p e n d i n g on t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d t h e i r the s e t t i n g , interactions.  backgrounds,  and t h e m o t i v a t i o n s prompting  verbal  Knowing, what t o s a y a n d how t o s a y i t  their  c a n a t t i m e s be d i f f i c u l t language. with  Add  f o r speakers i n a  to t h i s the complexities  first  associated  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e u s e and t h e m y r i a d o f  intricacies  involved i n negotiating non-native c u l t u r a l , and b e h a v i o r a l p a t t e r n s ;  and t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f  c o l l a b o r a t i v e e f f o r t s toward s u c c e s s f u l b e t w e e n NS to  and NNS  social,  communication  i s profoundly evident.  According  Ramirez, Developing o r a l p r o f i c i e n c y i n a language i n v o l v e s a b r o a d range competencies  of  associated with d i f f e r e n t  conversational for talking.  second  s i t u a t i o n s , t o p i c s , and O r a l .communication  rules  includes  both t r a n s a c t i o n a l uses of language r e l a t e d t o t h e exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n  and  i n t e r a c t i o n a l purposes connected with social are  f u n c t i o n s of speech.  Conversations  g o v e r n e d by a number o f d i s c o u r s e  enabling  speakers to s h i f t  problems  associated with  p. 232) .  rules  topics, repair miscommunication,  and m a i n t a i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l ( R a m i r e z , 1995,  the  sequences  3.2.2 Research Question #2 What is the balance and  and English  being  how is t h i s r e f l e c t e d in the negotiation  and  modification  3.2.3  of Japanese  spoken,  sequences?  Research Question #3  What were  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perspectives  conversational  on t h i s  a c t i v i t y and how did they  describe  t h e i r experiences  teaching  through  In every  remember  and perceptions  the stimulated  and  of learning  r e c a l l sessions  dyad, t h e language p r o d u c t i o n  and  afterward?  a t t h e end o f  e a c h h o u r t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s were l o n g e r , more c o m p l e x , a n d more f r e e f l o w i n g , a s t h e p a r t n e r s b e g a n t o g e t t o know e a c h o t h e r a b i t more' a n d f e l t more ~ comfortable. to f e e l i n g but  S i xout of eight of the p a r t i c i p a n t s admitted  q u i t e apprehensive  before  taping the dialogs,  a l l commented d u r i n g t h e d e b r i e f i n g s e s s i o n s t h a t  enjoyed  t h e exchange and would l i k e  t o do i t a g a i n .  d i s p l a y e d new k n o w l e d g e . t h a t t h e y h a d g a i n e d since their  initial  conversation partner  Several valuable suggestions  they Three  and r e t a i n e d  meeting.  were made b y t h e .  participants.  F o r e x a m p l e , i t was r e c o m m e n d e d • t h a t  partners,begin  g e t t i n g t o know e a c h o t h e r  i n an i n f o r m a l ,  social  gathering f i r s t  i n order  to' seek each o t h e r out f o r  p a i r i n g and t o b r e a k t h e i c e w i t h l e s s p r e s s u r e Also,  three p a r t i c i p a n t s suggested  t o p i c s be p r o v i d e d conversations  t h a t some  t o perform.  specific  f o r d i s c u s s i o n t o h e l p move t h e  along.  A l l eight participants voiced a  strong a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y t o share and  c u l t u r e s and a l l e x p r e s s e d  a conversation partner  languages  a strong desire continue i n  arrangement.  3.3 Methodology The  f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s d e s c r i b e t h e l o c a t i o n and  e n v i r o n m e n t where t h i s  s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d ,  i t s  p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d how t h e y were d e t e r m i n e d ,  the  i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e s , and.the data  collection  p r o c e d u r e s a n d how t h e y were a p p l i e d .  3.3.1  The  Site:  In P a r t n e r s h i p t o Promote C u l t u r a l x  The has  Exchange  language s c h o o l a t t h i s A m e r i c a n community c o l l e g e  long recognized  o p p o r t u n i t i e s , both population,  the value i n regards  of informal conversational t o i t s ESL  student  a s w e l l .as t o t h e c o m m u n i t y a t l a r g e i n an  effort to cultivate understanding.  cultural diversity,  d i a l o g , and  The l a n g u a g e s c h o o l h a s d e v e l o p e d  numerous  s u c c e s s f u l a c t i v i t i e s and programs t o p r o v i d e opportunities speakers,  i t s students  f o r informal interaction with native English  and t h e C o n v e r s a t i o n  Partner  Program, which has  b e e n a c t i v e l y p r o m o t e d on campus f o r more t h a n  eight  years,  e x e m p l i f i e s t h i s approach t o l e a r n i n g . Along  similar lines,  This college describes i t s mission  i n t h e f o l l o w i n g words:  "To meet t h e d i v e r s e ,  lifelong  e d u c a t i o n a l needs o f o u r community and d e v e l o p t h e potential  of our students  ... F o s t e r i n g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f  v a l u e s which promote open-mindedness, sensitivity will  and r e s p e c t  be s u p p o r t e d  awareness,  f o r d i f f e r e n c e s a r e encouraged and  (College Catalog,  2001-2)."  In a d d i t i o n t o m e e t i n g t h e needs o f t h e community,  this  c o l l e g e has been a c t i v e l y p r o m o t i n g and r e c r u i t i n g international than  students  twenty years.  p o p u l a t i o n i s over  and i n t e r n a t i o n a l  p r o g r a m s f o r more  The c u r r e n t f u l l - t i m e  student  6000, w i t h 180 i n t e r n a t i o n a l  students  e n r o l l e d f r o m 86 c o u n t r i e s . The  c u r r e n t c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r program promotes t h e  v a l u e o f d i v e r s i t y a t a l l l e v e l s o f language a b i l i t y and recognizes speakers  the b e n e f i t s t o both  first-  and s e c o n d - l a n g u a g e  a s t h e y n e g o t i a t e m e a n i n g a n d compare c u l t u r e s  through  cooperative  learning.  CC s t u d e n t s  through  t h e many s t r u g g l e s i n h e r e n t  l e a r n t o work  i n l i n g u i s t i c and  c r o s s - c u l t u r a l communication greater appreciation  for diversity  f a c i n g thei.r i n t e r n a t i o n a l efforts  difficulties,  a r e made t o p a i r  and  while  gaining  the.challenges  c o u n t e r p a r t s . Whenever  s t u d e n t s who  o t h e r ' s l a n g u a g e s and c u l t u r e s ,  possible,  are studying  each  as w e l l as. t o t a k e c a r e i n  m a t c h i n g p e r s o n a l i t i e s and g o a l s t o t h e b e s t o f o u r ability.  3.3.2  Participants  The p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s c a t e g o r i e s and •  research belonged to the  following  demographics:  A l l were b e g i n n i n g l e v e l o r h i g h b e g i n n i n g l e v e l  second  language students, w i t h l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e t r a v e l i n g living  i n 'the c o u n t r y o f t h e t a r g e t  or  language  i  •  F o u r were J a p a n e s e n a t i o n a l s c u r r e n t l y  living  and l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e c o l l e g e based i n t e n s i v e language •  F o u r were n a t i v e E n g l i s h f o r e i g n language  •  i n the  U.S.  (ESL) a t a  institute  s p e a k e r s l e a r n i n g J a p a n e s e as a  (JFL)  An e q u a l number o f m a l e s and f e m a l e s i n e a c h l a n g u a g e s e t was  sought i n o r d e r t o form gender d i v e r s e  however, t h e e l i g i b l e  pairing;  r e s p o n d e n t s were p r e d o m i n a t e l y m a l e  -in t h e J F L g r o u p and p r e d o m i n a t e l y f e m a l e i n t h e group.  ESL  The make up o f t h e p a i r s was as f o l l o w s : M a l e JFL + M a l e ESL Male  J F L  + Female  M a l e JFL + Female ESL Male  E S L  J F L  + female  E S L  W h i l e g e n d e r b i a s o r e f f e c t may have i n f l u e n c e d t h e data,  i t was n o t i n t e n d e d t o be a f o c u s o f t h i s  study.  However, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h c o m p a r i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f g e n d e r on n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n among s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s i s n e e d e d a n d s h o u l d be e x p l o r e d f u r t h e r .  L i k e w i s e , age a n d  e c o n o m i c s t a t u s was n o t g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t t h i s As  time.  a n t i c i p a t e d g i v e n t h e c u r r e n t makeup o f c o n v e r s a t i o n  partners, at the host . i n s t i t u t i o n , volunteered to  participate  t h e a p p l i c a n t s who  i n this  study f e l l  within the  r a n g e o f 18 t o 27 y e a r s o f age a n d h a d s k i l l s a n d experience  comparable t o a t l e a s t  one y e a r o f s u c c e s s f u l  c o l l e g e study i n the t a r g e t language. had a t l e a s t  Participants  also  some l i m i t e d - c u l t u r a l e x p e r i e n c e o r k n o w l e d g e  o f J a p a n a n d t h e U.S.  A p p l i c a n t s w i t h more t h a n one y e a r  i m m e r s i o n i n t h e t a r g e t l a n g u a g e c o u n t r y were, c o n s i d e r e d o v e r - q u a l i f i e d a n d were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y . A p p l i c a n t s were s c r e e n e d requirements  f o r t h e minimum l a n g u a g e  mentioned above, then were-randomly  matched.  PARTICIPANTS' INFORMATION COUNTRY  1-12  TERC.  TIME ABROAD TARGET LANG. TOTAL:  F  6YR.  3 MO.  3 MONTHS  20  M  0  1 YR.  4 WEEKS  AGE & SEX  NAME (PSEUDONYM) IN DYADS:  NATIONALITY  'SACHI'  JAPAN  18  'BRETT'  USA  M/F  LANG. EDUC.  'YASU'  1 JAPAN  20  M  6 YR.  6 MO.  6 MONTHS  'PETE'  I USA  23  M  1 YR.  1 YR.  0  'RIE'  JAPAN  25  F  6 YR.  3 MO.  3 MONTHS  'SAM'  USA  23  M  0  2 YR.  5 WEEKS  'ASUKA'  JAPAN  21  F  6 YR.  6 MO.  10 MONTHS  •TIM'  USA  21  M  0  1 YR.  4 WEEKS  3.3.3 The I n v e s t i g a t o r It school  i s important  t o c l a r i f y my r o l e s a t t h e l a n g u a g e  and t h e c o l l e g e , as w e l l as t o e x p l a i n t h e  perspective  I have t a k e n  i n this  research.  At the time of  t h i s w r i t i n g I am t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e l a n g u a g e s c h o o l , as w e l l as t h e Japanese language i n s t r u c t o r  f o rthe college,  t h o u g h none o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were s t u d e n t s the  time of t h i s  teaching  study.  ESL a n d ' J F L ,  With over twelve  o f mine a t  years'  experience  I have l o n g p o n d e r e d and e x p l o r e d t h e  o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e two s t u d e n t  populations  I  work most c l o s e l y w i t h t o team up a n d l e a r n f r o m e a c h other. By  administering the conversation  p a r t n e r program, I  h a v e h a d many o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o o b s e r v e s t u d e n t teaching  and l e a r n i n g from each o t h e r ,  pairs  and have  witnessed  f i r s t h a n d t h e e n t h u s i a s m and dynamic l e a r n i n g t h a t c a n t a k e place.  I n a d d i t i o n , I have r e v i e w e d  participant  evaluations of the conversation  f o r . many y e a r s  partner  program  and have c o n s i s t e n t l y been i m p r e s s e d by t h e  numbers o f a n d t y p e s challenge  the quarterly  of p o s i t i v e responses.  I face every  quarter  A common  i s f i n d i n g enough  volunteers  t o r e p l a c e t h e many who s t a y w i t h t h e i r , p a r t n e r s q u a r t e r after quarter,  sometimes over s e v e r a l  years.  Personally,  I have a l s o b e e n f o r t u n a t e t o have had  wide v a r i e t y of l e a r n i n g environments i n which t o Japanese myself,  and  found  t h e most r e w a r d i n g  p r o d u c t i v e means o f o b t a i n i n g l a n g u a g e and t o be  through  a very balanced  Japanese f r i e n d Our  who  was  actively  For a l l of these  o u r many  reasons  ourselves  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s and  l e a r n i n g w h e n e v e r we  s t u d i e s and  determine  3.3.4  Data C o l l e c t i o n g o a l s and  significant, striving cultures.  encourage relatively to  exchange t h a t  Procedures  p e r s p e c t i v e s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s  were  g i v e n t h a t t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were a l r e a d y  t o l e a r n and Therefore,  understand  each o t h e r ' s languages  and  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n v o l v e d i n t h e  r e s e a r c h from b e g i n n i n g generated  of t h i s  t h e t r u e e x t e n t o f l e a r n i n g and  place.  on  the  as w e l l as p r o v i d e much n e e d e d d a t a  takes  The  focused  I have chosen t o conduct  greater understanding  untapped resource,  to  were,together.  f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h i n the hopes t h a t . i t might like  far  to learn English.  c o n s c i o u s l y devoted  h e l p i n g each o t h e r w i t h our  and  c u l t u r e by  were c o m p a r a b l e , and  so we  study  mutual exchange w i t h a  equally motivated  language a b i l i t i e s  interests•similar,  and  a  t o end  through  c o n v e r s a t i o n t o p i c s and  t h e use  of  self-  stimulated reflection  b a s e d on  r e v i e w i n g and  d i s c u s s i n g the video w i t h  researcher  individually,  audio,  video  and  i n a d d i t i o n to  recordings.  hour c o n v e r s a t i o n , then  the  observations,,  E a c h d y a d met  each p a r t i c i p a n t  once f o r a  one  spent  i  approximately researcher  one  and  a h a l f hours alone  in stimulated recall  o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s had video taped  met  with  reviewing  the  the' v i d e o .  None  t h e i r dyad p a r t n e r s p r i o r  the  interaction.  A u d i o r e c o r d i n g s were p a r t o f e v e r y m e e t i n g ,  whether  with, c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r s or i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s . However, o n l y t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r t a p e s completely  t r a n s c r i b e d and  were  coded.  V i d e o r e c o r d i n g s were made o n c e f o r e a c h s e t  of  p a r t n e r s i n o r d e r t o document b o d y l a n g u a g e , g e s t u r e s , any  w r i t t e n cues.  Physical gestures  are a  significant  f a c t o r i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n and  t o r e l y p u r e l y on  transcriptions  of negotiated  f o r evidence  . c o m p r e h e n s i o n , and to f u l l y understand this  s t u d y was  not  gestures  meaning,  a movie w i t h eyes c l o s e d .  interactions provided Videotapes  audio  e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n i s tantamount to  gestures,  but  the v i s u a l  sociolinguistically  were c o m p a r e d t o t h e a u d i o  o r a c t i o n s were n o t e d  on t h e  and  The  trying  focus  r e c o r d of  richer  their  data.  transcriptions transcripts.  of  and  3.4  Data A n a l y s i s The  utilized  f o l l o w i n g are the eight coding in this  study,  inscriptions  there d e f i n i t i o n s ,  u t t e r a n c e s b a s e d on t h e r e s e a r c h and c o d i n g (1998).  and  sample  a p p l i e d by S h i  Example  1 Coding A b b r e v i a t i o n s  & Terminology  (Note: examples and t e r m i n o l o g y t a k e n from S h i , 1998, pp. 60-68) Initiating CC  =  N&gotiation: Comprehension Checks ("Do you understand  FB  =  Feedback Requests ("Is t h i s your  CF  =  me?")  Confirmation  idea,  Kim?")  Checks  ("Lower?") ( O f t e n r e p e a t s i n f o . , i n q u e s t i o n form...) CR  =  C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests ("What's that?")  Modification sc  =  ,  : Self-correction (Makes a d j u s t m e n t s t o own o u t p u t )  oc  =  Other-correction (Makes a d j u s t m e n t s t o a n o t h e r ' s  pr  =  output)  Completion Requests ("and in some...") (Incomplete sentence w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n that another w i l l  op  =  'fill  i n the blanks')  Other-completion (Fills  i n t h e b l a n k s , o r gaps, f o r another)  P r i o r t o commencing t h e c o d i n g , a s e c t i o n was at  chosen  random f r o m t h e c o m p l e t e t r a n s c r i p t i o n s a n d an  intercoder r e l i a b l i l i t y  o f 89% was a t t a i n e d w i t h  another  r e s e a r c h e r i n t h e SLA f i e l d .  3.4.1  Audio  & Video  Recordings  Four a u d i o r e c o r d i n g s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r  meetings,  e a c h one h o u r i n l e n g t h ,  comprised the bulk of the data f o r  transcription.  s e g m e n t s were t r a n s c r i b e d  Japanese  into  r o m a n i z e d a l p h a b e t t o a l l o w a c c e s s t o more r e a d e r s . t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e Japanese shown i n b r a c k e t s .  The  portions of the dialogs are  '  ,  F o u r v i d e o s e g m e n t s (one p e r p a i r ) were v i s u a l l y transcribed activities  f o r g e s t u r e s and b o d y l a n g u a g e , and t h o s e t h a t p e r t a i n e d t o code s w i t c h i n g and  negotiation, were n o t e d ' o n  and s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g o r l e a r n i n g the audio t r a n s c r i p t s .  Japanese  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e u t t e r a n c e s and E n g l i s h f i r s t  activities first  and  and  second  l a n g u a g e u t t e r a n c e s were t a l l i e d f r o m t h e a u d i o t a p e transcription  t o d e t e r m i n e what amounts o f t h e l a n g u a g e s  were b e i n g s p o k e n sequences  and by whom.  Coding of n e g o t i a t e d  was b a s e d upon t h e number a n d t y p e o f  comprehension  checks, feedback r e q u e s t s , c o n f i r m a t i o n  c h e c k s , and c l a r i f i c a t i o n  r e q u e s t s , and  language  modification correction,  was c o d e d by s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n , completion requests,  E x a m p l e #1)*  uttered  other-  and o t h e r c o m p l e t i o n ( s e e  by e i t h e r p a r t n e r ,  i n either  language,  c o m p r i s i n g n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n and c o l l a b o r a t i v e discourse.  T h e s e were t h e n c o m p a r e d -  Japanese, versus f i r s t any  patterns  participants,  any or the  language E n g l i s h  of eight  i n d i v i d u a l meetings  one a p i e c e , t o v i e w and d i s c u s s Participants  the  t o n o t e any s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g  a c t i v i t i e s they i d e n t i f i e d .  I would a l s o  tape p e r i o d i c a l l y t o q u e s t i o n the p a r t i c i p a n t s  certain situations. reflect  The p a r t i c i p a n t s  on t h e a c t i v i t y  with  were a s k e d t o s t o p t h e t a p e a t  t i m e t o comment, and a l s o learning  - t o determine i f  emerged.  T h e r e was a t o t a l  videotapes.  first.language  were a l s o  recall  about  asked t o  and s h a r e t h e i r t h o u g h t s .  s e s s i o n s were a u d i o t a p e d a n d s t i m u l a t e d  stop  These  techniques  were e m p l o y e d t o a t t e m p t t o a s s e s s t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perception of learning. afford privacy  A l l names h a v e b e e n c h a n g e d t o  to the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  - CHAPTER FOUR -  4.0 R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n s o f the Research Questions : 1) How do conversation other's modify  languages  partners  i n i t i a t e negotiation  t h e i r own, or the other's  informal  spoken,  3) What were  language  output  and in  of Japanese  and English  negotiation  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perspectives a c t i v i t y and how did they  t h e i r experiences  teaching  being  sequences?  conversational  and  sequences  and how is t h i s r e f l e c t e d in the  modification  ' describe  each  conversation?  2) What is the balance  and  f a m i l i a r with  through  on t h i s remember  and  of  learning  and perceptions  the stimulated  recall  sessions  afterward?  4.1 Examples Found i n the Data A l t e r a t i o n s from  second  language t o f i r s t  b a c k a g a i n , t e r m e d code s w i t c h i n g , was f i r s t the t r a n s c r i p t i o n s ,  then t h e circumstance  i n s t a n c e was a s s e s s e d t o d e t e r m i n e  language o r identified i n  around  each  i f a n d what t y p e ' o f r  n e g o t i a t i o n was t a k i n g p l a c e For  ( S h i , 1998).  example, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t , b o t h  s w i t c h f r o m E n g l i s h t o J a p a n e s e i n an e f f o r t lexical  gap.  speakers  to c l a r i f y  a  The t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e J a p a n e s e a p p e a r s i n  b r a c k e t s and i s d e n o t e d by t h e [*] :  Example  2: Discussion  about  w r i t i n g one's  own  music  ( P l e a s e r e f e r t o E x a m p l e #1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f c o d i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s and t e r m i n o l o g y . )  250  Rie:  Or, ... my w o r d s .  CF  251  Sam:  My words...?  cr  252  Rie:  I write....  253  Sam:  Oh!  FB  254* R i e :  How  do y o u say...  Kashi?  Kashi?  [ L y r i c s ? . Song's Wakarimasen.  Uta  no  lyrics?]  2 5 5 * Sam:  Uhhh,  [ I d o n ' t know.]  cr  256  Rie:  ( G e s t u r e s w r i t i n g w i t h hand)  op  257  Sam:  Write- Handwriting!  CF  258  Rie:  Corn-compose?  sc/oc259  Sam/Rie  Compose  CF  2 60  Rie:  My compose.  oc  261  Sam:  Yeah, you  sc  262  Rie:  My compose...  oc  263  Sam:  Yeah, YOU  Compose,  Shhh.. compose  (Compose...) Compose. No?  compose, Myself  compose.  Urn I compose...  As  c a n be s e e n f r o m t h e e x a m p l e a b o v e , a m a j o r  b r e a k d o w n i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n was b e i n g  experienced  point.  session, R i e stopped  the  During the s t i m u l a t e d  recall  t a p e and s h a r e d t h a t i n . an e f f o r t  information  the vocabulary  and u n d e r s t a n d h e r .  switching  m i g h t be f a m i l i a r Unfortunately,  with  Sam d i d  know t h e J a p a n e s e word, b u t . c h o s e t o r e s p o n d i n  Japanese w i t h continued and  t o gain access t o the  as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e , she had t r i e d  t o J a p a n e s e i n t h e hopes h e r p a r t n e r  not  at this  wakar.imasen  [ I d o n ' t know].  on i n E n g l i s h u n t i l  The n e g o t i a t i o n  t h r o u g h t h e use o f  r e p e t i t i o n t h e p o i n t was f i n a l l y  gestures  understood.  Rather than embarrassment, both p a r t i c i p a n t s c l a i m e d t o have e n j o y e d t h e p r o c e s s o f f i g u r i n g trying the  t o say.  claims  This  by H a d l e y  o u t what t h e o t h e r  l e a d s me t o b e l i e v e t h a t c o n t r a r y t o (1993),  s e r i o u s l y annoyed o r h i n d e r e d  n e i t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t was by t h e communication  breakdown.  In fact,  who c l a i m e d  he remembered t h i n g s b e t t e r when he and h i s  partner  had t o stop  Negotiation  i t was s e e n a s an o p p o r t u n i t y  and " f i g u r e t h i n g s  relating  to pronunciation  listener,  a l s o comes i n t o While e r r o r s i n  can cause a complete breakdown i n  c o m m u n i c a t i o n , and a t t i m e s be f r u s t r a t i n g and  b y Sam,  out".'  p l a y as t h e " f i n e t u n i n g " o f t h e l a n g u a g e . pronunciation  was  t o both  often the error i n pronunciation  speaker  i s difficult  for  t h e second language l e a r n e r t o d e t e c t ,  intentional  e f f o r t s toward s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g  & Damico, 19.87), a s t h e f o l l o w i n g and P e t e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i l l situations,  even  with  (Yule,  Hoffman,  short e x c e r p t from  illuminate.  Yasu  In these types of  h a v i n g one-on-one c o l l a b o r a t i v e  interaction  with a n a t i v e speaker i s i n v a l u a b l e .  Example  3: Discussion  about  casual  greetings.  ( P l e a s e r e f e r t o E x a m p l e #1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f c o d i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s and t e r m i n o l o g y . ) FB  192  Yasu;  How a b o u t  'fwine'  CF  193  Pete :  Why?  CF  194  Yasu :  Fwine... (Wine?)  oc  195  Pete :  Oh,  sc  196  Yasu :  Fine!  oc  197  Pete :  Yeah.  FINE !  Fine,  Fwine...  I'm fine...  fine, ffffine.  I know 'F's a r e ,F's a n d R's a r e  h a r d f o r Japanese..:' F's... you?  Fine.  How a r e  It' s usually polite, i f  they ask you something, l i k e , you?"'you  s a y , " F i n e , how 'bout  Does t h a t make s e n s e ? sc  198  Yasu :  F i n e , what's  A n o t h e r example, discussion,  this  "How a r e you?? "  (Yeah)  up, what up, ( l a u g h s )  one t a k e n f r o m S a c h i a n d B r e t t ' s  shows b o t h l e x i c a l , a n d p r o n u n c i a t i o n  corrections occurring  simultaneously i n the modification  n e g o t i a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e J a p a n e s e word nannen years]  (lines  Example  [how many-  334-339):  4: Discussion  about  length  of time  in the US.  ( P l e a s e r e f e r t o E x a m p l e #1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f c o d i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s and t e r m i n o l o g y . ) 333 FB  Brett: So  Same?  how long...  benkyou  Yeah.  I t gets easier,  Nan sen*... ka .  shimasu  I think.  eetou,  [What  (sen)?  Umm,  do y o u  study?] oc  334  Sachi:  Nannen.  sc  335  Brett :  Nannen... Nansai... [How many years... •  [How  many  years.]  old...]  CF  336  Sachi:  Nanse?  CF  337  Brett :  How many y e a r s ?  oc  338  Sachi:  Nannnen  sc  339  Brett :  Nannen?  •  Nannen.  Okay.  Working t o g e t h e r w i t h a n a t i v e speaker s t r u g g l i n g w i t h t h e complementary second ideal  Nannen...  who may a l s o be  l a n g u a g e i s an  o p p o r t u n i t y f o rboth partners t o l e a r n  o t h e r and d e v e l o p  listening  the L 2 ' s sound d i s t i n c t i o n s . (1987),  t h e s e must f i r s t  skills  capable  from  each  of determining  According t o Yule et a l . ,  be r e c o g n i z e d f o r p r o p e r  p r o n u n c i a t i o n t o develop. ' C o r r e c t i n g and e x p e r i m e n t i n g  w i t h p r o n u n c i a t i o n i n and  of  itself  i s a challenging,  s e l f - c o n s c i o u s endeavor  and a t t i m e s , e m b a r r a s s i n g ,  wrought  f o o l i s h n e s s as s e c o n d l a n g u a g e awkward s o u n d s .  As r e f l e c t e d  lowered a f f e c t i v e with the r i g h t  filters,  with feelings learners  of  fumble t o  i n the examples  t h e p r o c e s s may  c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r and  find  above,  with  even become f u n ,  language  combination.  4.1.1  Additional  Communication  Other, c o m m u n i c a t i o n employed,  though  Strategies  s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h were  not s p e c i f i c a l l y  coded  often  in this  study  i n c l u d e d p a r a p h r a s i n g and a p p r o x i m a t i o n , i n w h i c h incorrect  f o r m was  i n t e n t i o n a l l y employed  an  as a h i n t  e x p l a i n t h e d e s i r e d v o c a b u l a r y i t e m , word c o i n a g e , circumlocution the  Tarone  goes on t o  s t r a t e g y o f " b o r r o w i n g " f r o m one's f i r s t  either  my  switch.  identify  language  R i e a t t e m p t e d such a s w i t c h i n Example  d a t a on page 44 i n l i n e  Japanese  w o r d kashi  254  when she i n s e r t e d  #2  the  i n t o h e r E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e when she  c o u l d n o t remember t h e w o r d 333,  and  i n d i r e c t word f o r word t r a n s l a t i o n , , o r i n a  language of  (T'arone, 1 9 8 1 ) .  to  'lyric'..  I n E x a m p l e #4,  B r e t t a t t e m p t e d a w o r d f o r word s w i t c h m i d  from E n g l i s h t o Japanese.  line  sentence  I n most c a s e s , t h e s w i t c h e s were  n o t a b r u p t and p r e m e d i t a t e d u t t e r a n c e s , b u t r a t h e r  seemed  t o be a l m o s t a c c i d e n t a l o r u n c o n s c i o u s b o r r o w i n g f r o m either  l a n g u a g e when c o n v e n i e n t o r o p p o r t u n e .  4.1.2 The Dominance o f E n g l i s h i n D i s c u s s i o n s  and the  P e r c e p t i o n s o f Language A b i l i t i e s I n a l l b u t one r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n , the d i s c u s s i o n s .  English  dominated  I n t h e one - c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t was w e i g h t e d  more h e a v i l y t o w a r d J a p a n e s e w i t h s i x t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t ,  i t  seemed t o be more a m a t t e r o f p e r s o n a l i t i e s d i c t a t i n g t h e balance r a t h e r than language s k i l l .  A quite  f e m a l e , Y o s h i e , was r a n d o m l y m a t c h e d  with Brett,  o u t g o i n g young A m e r i c a n m a l e w i t h good •skills.  shy.Japanese  Japanese  a very language  ' When Y o s h i e met t o go o v e r t h e v i d e o t a p e , s h e  commented b e f o r e t h e t a p e was s t a r t e d t h a t h e r p a r t n e r h a d "perfect  Japanese!"  When I a s k e d h e r i f s h e h a d h a d t o  s l o w down o r u s e s i m p l e l a n g u a g e t o a s s i s t understanding,  she adamantly  Brett  in his  s a i d no, s h e h a d n o t .  However, a f t e r v i e w i n g t h e t a p e , Y o s h i e was, s u r p r i s e d t o observe t h a t she had i n d e e d a d j u s t e d h e r language significantly  t o accommodate h e r p a r t n e r ,  l a n g u a g e , ' ' t h o u g h good, This s i t u a t i o n  and t h a t h i s  was h o t p e r f e c t .  reveals the possible p i t f a l l s  of pair  w o r k i f one o r t h e o t h e r p a r t n e r i s e x t r e m e l y s h y o r o u t g o i n g , and t h e importance o f c a r e f u l l y matching  partners  for  common i n t e r e s t s and p e r s o n a l i t i e s , In  the o t h e r t h r e e dyads, d e s p i t e e f f o r t s t o screen f o r  language s k i l l ,  t h e r e was  the c a p a b i l i t i e s ESL s t u d e n t s . E n g l i s h was in  i f possible.  s'till  a large disparity  o f t h e J.F.L s t u d e n t s  here or there.  #2  to the  above,  w i t h Japanese s p r i n k l e d  A placement t e s t or language i n t e r v i e w  w o u l d be a h e l p f u l way and ESL s k i l l  when compared  As c o u l d be s e e n i n E x a m p l e  t h e medium o f e x c h a n g e ,  between  t o more a c c u r a t e l y e s t a b l i s h t h e J F L  l e v e l s and f i n d b e t t e r m a t c h e s  f o r language  exchange. The  f o l l o w i n g excerpt  reflects  an i n t e r e s t i n g m i x  E n g l i s h and J a p a n e s e l e s s o n s i n w h i c h b o t h acting e x p l i c i t l y this  example,  as t e a c h e r s  r a t h e r than  of t h e i r  limiting  excerpts with abstract' utterances effort  to represent  discussion,  has been p r o v i d e d . bold text.  first  are  language.  In  t h e samples t o s h o r t o f n e g o t i a t i o n , i n an  the a c t u a l context  a longer, continuous  partners  of  and f l o w o f t h e  segment o f  conversation  Coding appears along the l e f t  margin i n  A d d i t i o n a l comments and d i s c u s s i o n f o l l o w t h i s  d i a l o g and r e f e r t o t h e l i n e numbers shown on t h e l e f t . longer utterances, the s p e c i f i c has been u n d e r l i n e d f o r c l e a r  area  relating  identification-.  In  t o the_ c o d i n g  Example  5: Tim  (B) and Asuka  (A) discuss  travel  &  music  ( P l e a s e r e f e r t o E x a m p l e #1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f c o d i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s and t e r m i n o l o g y . ) FB 19B 20A  21 B sc 22 A  23 B se 24A pr op 25 B 26 A  CF 27 B .28 A  So, i s t h i s  your f i r s t  time i n America?  I f o r g o t , when I was, when I was a c h i l d . . . I d o n ' t know what a g e , b u t maybe t h r e e o r f o u r , I h a d , I had . . . H a w a i i . • Oh, wow ! Hawai ni ikimashita, H a w a i i , yeah.] Wakarimashita. Nihonjin. [many  ne.  [Got i t . ] Japanese]  Un.  [ ( I ) went t o  H a w a i i ah, has  takusan  Ah, unn. Yeah, y e a h , y e a h . A c t u a l l y , I had a two t i m e , I had. a go... t o H a w a i i two t i m e s a n d t h e second times i s r e a l l y eh, nani... saikin? [What? Lately?] Lately Yeah, y e a h , y e a h . So desu yo. [That's r i g h t ! ] I was s u r p r i s e d a b o u t a l o t o f A m e r i c a n c a n s p e a k Japanese. Oh, i n i n H a w a i i ? Yeah...  FB 29 B  Oh, wow. Um, s o o o o Amerika [ I n A m e r i c a what... study...?]  ni nani  ga... benkyou...  oc 30 A  A h , Amerika de nani wo benkyou shi ni k i t e i r u [What d i d I come t o s t u d y i n A m e r i c a ? ]  31B  Hai.  32 A  Ah, I s e e , s o o , a c t u a l l y , I wanna be a singer... b u t I c a n s i n g a s o n g i n English....  CF 33 B  [Yes.]  You want t o s i n g i n E n g l i s h ?  ka?  34 A sc 35 B • 36 A FB 3 7 B  Yeah, so I want t o know E n g l i s h ' s - a l l o f mean, and uh, I h a v e I wanna g e t k n o w l e d g e o f E n g l i s h , or something. But I t h i n k s i n g i n g E n g l i s h i s d i f f e r e n t t h a n speaking English. Oh,  really!  Oh.  Yeah. W e l l , t h e same w i t h J a p a n e s e , r i g h t ? You know. L i k e t h e p a c e , and how you h o l d t h i n g s up... Umm. What k i n d o f k i n d o f J a p a n e s e m u s i c do you like?  38 A  R & B,  CF 39 B  R & B?  Yeah  40 A  Yeah.  I  like.  41B  Do you l i k e  ah D r a g a n a s h ?  p r 42 A  Hmmm?  I don't  CF43B  You d o n ' t  CR44A  Onegai... [ P l e a s e  know  Dragonash?  know but... Dragonash? (tell  me)!]  45 B  T h e y ' r e , t h e y ' r e k i n d a l i k e h i p hop. Japanese, t h e y u s e d t o p l a y r o c k n r o l l , b u t now h i p . h o p . I d o n ' t know, I ' v e o n l y h e a r d them a c o u p l e o f times. Umm, s o o , how w o u l d you... I f I was t o l i k e s p e a k Japanese... Urn, I g u e s s I want t o b r u s h up some o f my s k i l l s . I t ' s b e e n a w h i l e s i n c e I ' v e s t u d i e d , s o , urn,how w o u l d I , how w o u l d I l i k e , uh, i f I was s t a y i n g somewhere, l i k e , a r e y o u s t a y i n g a t a h o s t family, or..  46 A  R i g h t now? Uh, me? A t dorm.  FB FB pr  CF CF 47 B  Uh, y o u ' r e s t a y i n g a t t h e dorms. Say, l i k e , I v i s i t e d J a p a n , and I went t o y o u r h o u s e , t h i s i s j u s t a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , l i k e , how w o u l d I t h a n k you f e r l e t t i n g me s t a y a t y o u r h o u s e ? L i k e , l i k e , s a y you l i v e w i t h a h o s t f a m i l y , you know, l i k e f o r one month, j u s t v i s i t i n g , and you  w o u l d s a y , 'Thank y o u f o r l e t t i n g me s t a y a t y o u r h o u s e , y o u know, how w o u l d y o u s a y t h a t i n Japanese?  FB  48 A  Eetoo,  [Umm]  p r 49 B  Or l i k e ' t h a n k y o u f o r y o u r , t a k i n g c a r e o f me, k i n d of...  pr/CR50A  Ahhhh, a h h , I d o n ' t know t h a t many...  CR 51 B  Would y o u j u s t  s c 52 A  Yeah, un, Doomo arigatou gozaimasu, So! Taihen osewa ni narimashita. Yeas, yeah, thank you v e r y , much. Right! You've t a k e n good c a r e o f me.]  CR 53 B  Taihen... [Very...] S a y t h a t more s l o w l y .  54 A  Taihen...  s c 55 B  Taihen...  56 A  ah, kindness, o r  s a y Doomo arigatou?  [Thank  you?]  Osewa ni [...cared for...]  CR 57 B  Osewan... Can y o u w r i t e t h a t down? "Cause, i t ' s i t ' d be e a s i e r i f I c o u l d s e e i t . You c o u l d w r i t e i t i n hiragana. I can read hiragana.  CF 58 A  Hiragana? Okay. (writes) you f o r y o u r , e v e r y t h i n g .  p r 59 B  So, taihen,  CC 60 A  ' You know?  that's like  Yeah.  This i s thank  a l i k e a.,  61 B  'So much', o r o r l i k e , y e a h j u s t k i n d a ' l i k e , 'overwhelming', so i t ' s kinda l i k e s a y i n g osewa ni w h a t ' s osewa?  62 A  Yeah,  CR  yeah, yeah!  'Take c a r e ' .  CC 63 B  A n d t h e n narimashita  i s 'become'?  Kind o f .  op ,64 A  Yeah,' y e a h , k i n d o f ummm. Yeah, 'become'. Um. This i svery p o l i t e . Yeah, y e a h , y e a h , ( w r i t i n g )  In  T i m and A s u k a ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n , l i n e  22 g i v e s a n ,  interesting  example o f s e l f  switching.  A s u s k a was u n s u r e o f h e r E n g l i s h , s o t o be s a f e  she  c o r r e c t i o n through  gave t h e s t a t e m e n t a g a i n  acceptable  i n Japanese..  code  This  was  and a c t u a l l y d e s i r a b l e f r o m h e r p a r t n e r ' s  p e r s p e c t i v e g i v e n h i s own i n t e r e s t  i n l e a r n i n g and u s i n g  J a p a n e s e , as h i s J a p a n e s e r e p l y i n l i n e  23 e x h i b i t s .  P e r h a p s e n c o u r a g e d by h i s p a r t n e r ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o falter  and s t r u g g l e , T i m t h e n  attempts  a more  difficult  c o n s t r u c t i o n i n J a p a n e s e , a n d t h o u g h he f a i l e d t o a grammatically understood  complete sentence,  by A s u k a .  generate  h i s m e a n i n g was  T h e r e was l e s s shame i n u s i n g  l a n g u a g e s and t h e c h a n c e o f b e i n g  understood  was  clearly both  doubled  w i t h the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of using e i t h e r E n g l i s h or Japanese. This c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c  c o l l a b o r a t i o n was e v i d e n t  again i n  lines  24 & 25, 29 & 30, a n d i n t h e l o n g e r e x c h a n g e  lines  47-64.  In  a d d i t i o n t o code s w i t c h i n g , , t h e above examples a l s o  highlight the e x p l i c i t was t a k i n g p l a c e . regarding both and  from  English  language t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g t h a t  Specific  Japanese language usage  (line 24).  language . teachers, both conveying  language questions  the requested  (lines  were p o s e d 47, 57, 61)  Though n e i t h e r . p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e are f u l l y information  capable  o f e x p l a i n i n g and  satisfactorily.  Example  6: Discussion  about  music  &  language  ( P l e a s e r e f e r t o Example #1 f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f c o d i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s and t e r m i n o l o g y . ) 99  Pete  Okay, o k a y , I g o t c h a , g o t c h a . A lot o Japanese s i n g e r s , a r e s t a r t i n g t o use l o t of E n g l i s h , l i k e Japanese s i n g e r s , rap-pop-whatever, (rapper) t h e y ' r e u s i n g E n g l i s h , l i k e , i n t h e songs.  100  Yasu :  Yes.  101  Pete :  A little urn... l i k e a l o t so speakin'  102  Yasu:  Why... don't... d o n ' t y o u u n d e r s t a n d ?  CF/prl03  Pete:  Why d o n ' t I understand....?  op  104  Yasu:  J a p a n e s e r a p p e r s ' .... D d d d z z z d d d  105  Pete:  Too  Yasu:  Not good p r o n u n c i a t i o n . . .  Pete :  Yeah... No, t h e E n g l i s h i s e a s y t o u n d e r s t a n d , sometimes (laughs) b u t s o m e t i m e s t h e y go t o o f a s t and t h e r e are other p a r t s , Japanese I guess. So, what e l s e do y o u do? Just...  108  Yasu :  I l i k e Japanese song. Do y o u l i k e J a p a n e s e song? ( P e t e n o d s 'yes') What k i n d of...? ...Can y o u s i n g ?  109  Pete :  110  Pete:  111  Yasu :  I ' v e o n l y l i s t e n e d t a .... A s m a l l amount. L i k e , s m a l l ... ( S m a l l ? ) Yeah, s m a l l , i n s t e a d o f like.... Can I s i n g ( l a u g h s ) Oh, no! Oh, no. I'm w h i t e . No, um, - I c a n ' t s i n g . Do y o u remember t h a t ?  FB  FB  106 107  !  FB/pr FB  FB  Do y o u u n d e r s t a n d ?  fast  '  b i t . Yeah, y e a h , some p a r t s , Tada H i k a k o , I l i s t e n t o t h a t I , l i k e , know when s h e ' s E n g l i s h a whole l o t , so.  sometimes.  CR  112  Pete: .  Do I remember w h a t ?  113  Yasu:  The ... s s you l i s t e n e d  CF  114  Pete:  L i s t e n e d song? No. (No?) No. ( l a u g h s ) J u s t p r e t t y much o l d s o n g s , l i k e aaa remember " S u k i y a k i " ? T h a t ' s about i t !  FB  115  Yasu:  Ahh,  116*  Pete:  Uh, I d o n ' t want t o ! (laughs) " S u k i y a k i " , yeah, t h a t ' s about it... I t ' s , l i k e , o n e I know f a i r l y w e l l . Yeah. Sensei u s e d t o p l a y i t a lot...  117  Yasu:  Do you know who  FB  "Sukiyaki"!  song. ,  Can you  s s , who  sing?  s i n g s some  song? " S u k i y a k i " . . . 117  Pete:  Yeah, H i r o  118  Yasu:  Oh!!!  T h i s i s an e x a m p l e exhibit explicit but  Sakamura!  Yeah!  (laughs)  o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t does  Japanese or E n g l i s h language  there is- a l i v e l y  cultural  exchange  not  instruction,  taking place i n  w h i c h b o t h p a r t n e r s d e m o n s t r a t e an i n t e r e s t  i n each  other  and- a d e s i r e t o l e a r n more a b o u t e a c h o t h e r t h r o u g h a prolonged explicit 106  & 11.1)  conversation questions  (lines  100,  1 1 1 ) , as w e l l as  p e r t a i n i n g t o language i n general  (lines  .  When a s t i m u l a t i n g t o p i c was the  108,  discussed,  i n each  i n h i b i t i o n ' s seemed t o l e s s e n and i n t r i n s i c  would take over.  T h e r e was  dyad  motivation  l e s s care or concern given  to  grammatical  a c c u r a c y and a more t y p i c a l  n a t i v e speaker  of exchange t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h r a p i d t u r n t a k i n g  type  and  exuberance. Conversations a l s o extended over longer p e r i o d s of time  ( S w a i n , 1985) .  - CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 S i g n i f i c a n t . F i n d i n g s The  t a b l e s p r e s e n t e d a t t h e end o f t h i s  representative sequences.  o f the  t y p e s - a n d terras o f n e g o t i a t i o n  , T a b l e #2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  E n g l i s h and Japanese usage, and r e f l e c t s and  t o what d e g r e e .  initiated  who was s p e a k i n g  T a b l e #3 shows t h e i n s t a n c e s o f  negotiation  (please  i n C h a p t e r 3, page 41) . and  chapter are  refer  back t o coding  T a b l e #4 r e p r e s e n t s - t h e  examples numbers  t y p e s o f s p e e c h m o d i f i c a t i o n t h a t were d o c u m e n t e d , a n d  a l s o shows t h e number o f u t t e r a n c e s Samples o f d i a l o g s appendixes f o r  i n each  from each dyad are  language.  also included  i n the  reference.  5.1 Summary o f R e s u l t s As  a preliminary  negotiated  look  interaction  forth  of this  l i n g u i s t i c and c u l t u r a l  i n dyads p a i r e d w i t h  balance language a b i l i t i e s results  into  and c u l t u r a l  an e f f o r t t o  interests, the  study support t h eb a s i c assumptions put  b y Nakahama e t a l . , ( 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d S w a i n ,  in conversational "overall  a c t i v i t i e s of this  discourse,  or textual  type,  of rapport,  and the  that  t h e f o c u s i s on  coherence, t h e c r e a t i o n o f  s h a r e d schema a n d f r a m e , t h e m a i n t a i n i n g building  (1985),  e x c h a n g e ,of  o f face  and t h e  information  (Nakahama e t a l . , '2001, It  p.388)."  i s a challenge to f i n d balanced  different of t h i s  l a n g u a g e s and c u l t u r e s and my  across  strongest c r i t i q u e .  r e s e a r c h w o u l d be t h a t d e s p i t e a t t e m p t i n g  c o n d u c t a non-ESL b i a s e d s t u d y the - predominant dyads.  abilities  ( K a c h r u , ,1994), ESL  remained  l a n g u a g e and i n f l u e n c e i n t h r e e o u t o f f o u r  More c o m p l e t e s c r e e n i n g o f a b i l i t i e s  personalities  to  i s needed  to achieve  and  the d e s i r e d balance,  as  w e l l as a more e x t e n s i v e p o p u l a t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s S w i t c h i n g l a n g u a g e s most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r e d when t h e r e was  a breakdown i n communication  that required  concerted  n e g o t i a t i n g e f f o r t s / o r , o c c a s i o n a l l y , f a m i l i a r w o r d s were s l i p p e d i n and."borrowed" Affective participants' all  f a c t o r s a p p e a r e d t o be r e d u c e d , b a s e d ,on comments, once t h e d i a l o g s g o t  participants  s t a t e d that they  worthwhile  and p o s i t i v e  particular  interest  this  informally.  study  (Tarone, 1981).  Spontaneous  felt  underway,,and  t h e y had had a .  learning experience.  There  i n continuing the partnerships  was beyond'  collaborative conversational interaction  p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s e c o n d l a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t cultural  exchange  reduced a f f e c t i v e (Richards,  i n a more, n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t f a c t o r s and g r e a t e r i n d i v i d u a l  and  with autonomy  1980), p r o v i d e d the p a r t i c i p a n t s are at  comparable stages of language a b i l i t y . seen i n the with  NNS  review of l i t e r a t u r e ,  NNS  of e i t h e r the  language backgrounds, with  unknown l e v e l 1985;  of e x p e r t i s e  Doughty & P i c a ,  All  and  of power/knowledge w i t h r e g a r d  opportunity especially revealed  f o r dual i n the  r o l e of  "expert"  (Gass &  ESL  lead to a  to  an  Veronis,  disconcerting,  dominating  consideration distribution  to p a r t i c i p a n t s themselves  exchange i s o f t e n  United  States,  where  and  overlooked, studies.have  d e f i c i e n c y i n f o r e i g n language  knowledge•among A m e r i c a n s t u d e n t s  skills  (Hadley,  1993;  1985).  Participants linguistic  and  i n conversation  cultural  dyads t h a t  k n o w l e d g e h a v e an  o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o them. relatively 1982).  are  the  In a d d i t i o n , a tremendous r e s o u r c e  a serious  world  Stewart,  fluent in  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e s , o r i n an u n b a l a n c e d  (Kachru, 1994).  NNS  same o r d i f f e r e n t  accuracy  can  d e g r e e o f b i a s , w h e t h e r i t be  and  the  NS  1986).  these c o n f i g u r a t i o n s  of other  Likewise,  neither being  language, thus reducing  as  inadvertently  second language l e a r n e r .  often paired with  target  many s t u d i e s p a i r  i n a one-way e x c h a n g e t h a t may  i n t i m i d a t e the  Unfortunately,  as  added  dimension  NS-NNS p a i r i n g s  l i m i t e d i n scope, c o m p a r a t i v e l y  This'is particularly true  balance  are  (Chun e t a l . ,  i t pertains  to  native  English  speakers i n the United  Hadley,  "American students'  world  i s r e f l e c t e d not  language s k i l l s , information  but  in their  l a c k of  nations  and' p e o p l e s  able to gain valuable  from both s i d e s are  given  about another c u l t u r e . traditions,  conversations,  (Brown, 1990,  p.  basic  (p. 355) ."  language  skills  conversational  native  a unique opportunity  "Other p e o p l e ' s views,  f e e l i n g s , c u l t u r e s , are  the  foreign  Through c r o s s - c u l t u r a l d i s c u s s i o n s  n e g o t i a t i o n of b i l i n g u a l  to  ignorance of  knowledge of American c u l t u r e t h r o u g h  interaction.  5.2  According  i n a d e q u a t e knowledge of  i n t h e i r general  about other  NNSs o f E n g l i s h a r e and  only  States.  as-valuable  and  speakers to  learn  values, as o u r  own."  14) .  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future Research Given the p o p u l a r i t y of these c o n v e r s a t i o n  p r o g r a m s , and  t h e many s t u d i e s w h i c h s u p p o r t t h e v a l u e  informal conversational needed t o p r o v i d e c o m m u n i t i e s , and provide  i n t e r a c t i o n , more s t u d i e s  tangible incentives for institutions  j u s t t o ESL  t o n a t i v e E n g l i s h s p e a k e r s as w e l l , exposure to other  c u l t u r e s and  research  as  a way  languages  of  are  schools,  t o a c t i v e l y promote  t h e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s , not  Future  partner  and  learners,  but  t o improve  (Hadley,1993).  i s n e e d e d t o e x a m i n e and  compare  the  our  types of n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n a c r o s s a broader range of participants, of  utilizing  t o i n c l u d e g r o u p s and p a i r s who a r e c a p a b l e b o t h l a n g u a g e s and c u l t u r a l  determine c o n c l u s i v e l y , difference  knowledge t o  i f indeed, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t  i n l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g outcomes  b a s e d on l a n g u a g e  b a c k g r o u n d s and c o m b i n a t i o n s . An e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y o f t h i s important information  t o p i c would a l s o  i n the case of long term  provide  conversation  p a r t n e r i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e a s s o c i a t e d c u l t u r a l and linguistic  i m p l i c a t i o n s o v e r t i m e a n d w o u l d be a v a l u a b l e  a d d i t i o n t o t h i s g r o w i n g body o f k n o w l e d g e . More s t u d i e s w i t h more p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d more l a n g u a g e combinations at a l l s k i l l  l e v e l s ' a r e needed  understand a l l the i n t r i c a c i e s language  5.3  to truly  of negotiated interaction i n  acquisition.  Implications  f o r Teaching and L e a r n i n g  Languages  S t u d i e s o f n e g o t i a t i o n , b o t h p e d a g o g i c a l l y and o u t s i d e the  c l a s s r o o m , have much t o o f f e r t h e f i e l d  acquisition, multicultural who w o u l d g r e a t l y b e n e f i t  second language  a r e n a s , and s t u d e n t s t h e m s e l v e s , from h e a r i n g the r e s u l t s o f such  s t u d i e s i n a medium t h a t w o u l d be more a c c e s s i b l e .to them. S u c h r e s e a r c h w o u l d p r o v i d e much n e e d e d types of learning are r e a l l y  d a t a a b o u t what  a v a i l a b l e through informal  n e g o t i a t e d c o n v e r s a t i o n i n s m a l l groups or p a i r s ; can  c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e development of t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s  w h i c h c a n more s u c c e s s f u l l y c a p t u r e world  and r e p r e s e n t  l e g i t i m i z e s and p u b l i c i z e s t h e b e n e f i t s o f  c o n v e r s a t i o n p r o g r a m s l i k e t h e one p r e s e n t e d more s c h o o l s a n d p r o g r a m s w i l l necessary  .funding,  collaborative  support,  and s t a f f i n g  American students  t o make  will  h a v e more from v a r i e d  and l i n g u i s t i c b a c k g r o u n d s , and i n t e r e s t i n  f o r e i g n language study  and c r o s s - c u l t u r a l " e x p e r i e n c e s  i n t h e US c o u l d be n u r t u r e d Pedagogically speaking,  and  facilitators  cultural  gifts.  access  Informal  of or being  students linguistic  c o n v e r s a t i o n , as t h i s ,  study  A guided, yet could  t h e language exchange  s o one p a r t n e r i s n o t b e i n g ' t a k e n  left  and t o o l s  unstructured protocol f o r partners  e s t a b l i s h e d to help balance  opportunities  to help  each o t h e r ' s  demonstrated, i s fraught with v a r i a b l e s . relatively  of conversation  proven t a c t i c s  t o put t o use i n t h e i r programs i n o r d e r s u c c e s s f u l l y and c o m f o r t a b l y  here  developed.  programs need t o have p r a c t i c a l ,  be  study,  f i n d ways t o a l l o c a t e t h e  o p p o r t u n i t i e s to. i n t e r a c t w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s cultural  i n this  conversational opportunities available to  more.students.  still  the real  a r o u n d us and o u r s t u d e n t s .  If research  and  and i t  out of the i n t e r a c t i o n .  advantage  Scheduled or  t i m e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e a c h l a n g u a g e t o be u s e d c o u l d relieve  some o f t h e p r e s s u r e  regarding s k i l l  comparisons  students f e l t  and e x p r e s s e d  and p e r c e p t i o n s o r p o t e n t i a l  problems i n b a l a n c i n g shy v e r s u s  outgoing  personality  types. Use another  o f a u d i o and v i d e o r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e s a r e a l s o way t o e x t e n d  students i n t h i s  t h e l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s . - The  study expressed  v i e w i n g t h e i r own p e r f o r m a n c e s  a strong interest i n  on v i d e o t a p e ,  as w e l l as  a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e v i e w t h e items they had discussed with their partners.  Yasu a c t u a l l y r e q u e s t e d a  c o p y o f t h e t a p e b e c a u s e he s a i d he w a n t e d t o " t a k e i t home and  practice"!  ESL  c l a s s e s a n d h a s e x h i b i t e d v e r y few o u t w a r d s i g n s o f  interest  T h i s i s a s t u d e n t who h a s s t r u g g l e d i n h i s  i n learning English i n the classroom  y e t was v e r y e n g a g e d a n d i n i t i a t e d  numerous  environment, feedback  r e q u e s t s when g i v e n t h e c h a n c e t o s p e a k w i t h a p e e r informally. I n c o n c l u s i o n , b e f o r e e m b a r k i n g on a c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r p r o g r a m , t e a c h e r s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s h o u l d be aware o f t h e r i s k s a s w e l l a s t h e t i m e commitment. must t a k e c a r e t o p r o t e c t t h e i r and  s u p e r v i s e d meeting  language e x p l o i t a t i o n .  Schools  s t u d e n t s and p r o v i d e  a r e a s , as w e l l as t o g u a r d Though t h i s  safe  against  study presented  data  collected  from mixed gender dyads, i n p r a c t i c e ,  language school place  does n o t mix  partners.  c o l l e g e campus where t h i s g e n d e r s when m a t c h i n g  There are  female students they wish.  to i n t e r a c t  more r e s e a r c h  socially  language s c h o o l .  i s needed t o assess  and b e n e f i t s b e f o r e  on  information  p r o g r a m f a c i l i t a t o r s has  d e c i s i o n at the  research  the  took  conversation  ample o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r m a l e  E x p e r i e n c e and  conversation this  and  the  and  o r o f f campus i f ' s h a r e d by  other  been the b a s i s However, o n c e risks,  e d u c a t e d d e c i s i o n s can  be  for again  liabilities, made.  JAPANESE - ENGLISH DATA ANALYSIS: 'NAME'  TOTAL UTTERANCES BY DYAD  IN DYADS:  IN BOTH J & E  'SACHI' (F)  TOTAL TOTAL UTTERANCES UTTERANCES (INDIVIDUAL) (JAPANESE) #  %  1423  27.8%  3701  (M)  62.3%  72.2%  1220  1599  35.8%  2868  1667  #  %  590  31.2%  37.7%  1301  68.8%  112  50.9%  1487  35.0%  64.2%  108  49.1%  2760  65.0%  36.1%  271  70.8%  1396  33.0%  3233 63.1%  1891  36.9%  (JAPAN)  4467 'PETE' (M)  220  4.9%  4247  95.1%  (USA)  'RIE' (JAPAN)  4615 •SAM' (M)  383  8.3%  4232  91.7%  2948  63.9%  112  29.2%  2836  67.0%  2152  38.9%  481  60.0%  1671  35.4%  3377  61.1%  321  40.0%  3056  64.6%  (USA)  'ASUKA' (JAPAN)  5529 TIM' (M)  BY DYAD  (USA)  'YASU'  (F)  %  2013  5124  (F)  #  TOTAL E. UTTERANCES (INDIVIDUAL)  (JAPAN)  'BRETT'  (M)  BY DYAD  TOTAL J. TOTAL UTTERANCES UTTERANCES (INDIVIDUAL) (ENGLISH)  (USA)  802  14.5%  4727  85.5%  INITIATING NEGOTIATION - DATA ANALYSIS: INITIATING UTTERANCES BY DYAD  'NAME* IN DYADS:  IN BOTH J & E #  TOTAL UTTERANCES  COMPREHENSION CHECKS J - E #  •SACHI' (F) (JAPAN)  24  35.8%  2  0 -  •BRETT' (USA)  43  64.2%  7  'YASU' (M) (JAPAN)  39  40.2%  'PETE' (M) (USA)  58  'RIE' (F) (JAPAN) 'SAM'  TOTAL UTTERANCES FEEDBACK REQUESTS # J - E  TOTAL UTTERANCES  CONFIRMATION CHECKS # J - E  TOTAL UTTERANCES  CLARIFICATION REQUESTS J - E #  3  1 - 2  14  2 - 12  15  6 - 9  3 - 4  11  0 - 11  17  6 -  11  9  3 - 6  2  0 - 2  13  0 - 13  13  3  - 10  11  1 - 10  59.8%  6  2 - 4  15  1 - 14  19  5 - 14  18  5- 13  24  34.3%  3  0 - 3  5  1 - 4  9  3  -  6  7  2 - 5  46  65.7%  5  3 - 2  14  2 - 12  16  3  -  13  11  3 - 8  42  30.4%  10  4 - 6  9  3 - 6  15  5  -  10  8  3 - 5  69.6%  15  39  9 - 30  24  8 -  16  18  6- 12  2  (M)  (M)  (USA)  'ASUKA* (F) (JAPAN) 'TIM' (M)  (USA) J  9  6  5 - 10  MODIFICATION - DATA ANALYSIS: MODIFYING UTTERANCES BY DYAD  'NAME'  IN BOTH J & E  IN DYADS:  #  'SACHI'  26  (F)  (M)  OTHERCORRECTION # J -E  TOTAL UTTERANCES  TOTAL UTTERANCES  COMPLETION REQUESTS J -E #  OTHERCOMPLETION # J -E  5  0 -  5  4  4 - 0  8  1 - 7  9  9 - 0  51  66.2%  15  13 - 2  7  0 - 7  16  4  - 12  13  1 - 12  53  50.0%  17  1 . - 16  8  8 - 0  14  3  - 11  14  11 - 3  53  50.0%  9  6 - 3  21  0 - 21  11  4  - 7  12  0 - 12  27  37.0%  16  0 -  3  3 - 0  7  0  - 7  1  1 - 0  46  63.0%  7  7 - 0  10  0 - 10  11  2 - 9  18  0 - 18  87  42.2%  54  3 -  15  15  8  1 - 7  10  9 - 1  119  57.8%  37  34 - 3  21  0 - 21  49  15 - 34  12  0- 12  (USA)  'YASU' ' (M)  (JAPAN)  'PETE* (M)  (USA)  'RIE* (F)  16  (JAPAN)  'SAM' (M)  (USA)  •ASUKA'  51  -0  (JAPAN)  'TIM' (M)  SELFCORRECTION # J - E  TOTAL UTTERANCES  (JAPAN)  'BRETT'  (F)  33.8%  TOTAL UTTERANCES  (USAI  Bibliography A l j a a f r e h , A l i , & L a n t o l f , James P. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . N e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k as r e g u l a t i o n a n d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g i n t h e zone o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t . The Modern L a n g u a g e J o u r n a l , 78, • 4 6 5 - 4 8 3 . B a r r o n , C. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . M a t e r i a l thoughts: ESP and culture. E n g l i s h f o r S p e c i f i c P u r p o s e s , 10, 173-187.  of  and  Brown, G. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Cultural values: d i s c o u r s e . ELT J o u r n a l , 44, 11-17.  The  interpretation  Brown, H. D. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P r i n c i p l e s o f Language L e a r n i n g Teaching. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l .  Brown, H. D. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T e a c h i n g . b y p r i n c i p l e s : an i n t e r a c t i v e approach t o language pedagogy. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l Regents. B r u m f i t , C h r i s t o p h e r (1984). Communication methodology i n language t e a c h i n g : t h e r o l e s o f f l u e n c y and a c c u r a c y . C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press.. Chun, A., Day, R. C h e n o w e t h , N, & L u p p e s c o , S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E r r o r s , i n t e r a c t i o n , and c o r r e c t i o n s : A s t u d y o f n a t i v e n o n n a t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 16, 537-546. De l a l u z R e y e s , M a r i a . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . C h a l l e n g i n g v e n e r a b l e assumptions: l i t e r a c y i n s t r u c t i o n f o r l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t s t u d e n t s . H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w , 62. D e l p i t , L. (1988). The s i l e n c e d d i a l o g u e : Power and pedagogy i n e d u c a t i n g o t h e r p e o p l e ' s c h i l d r e n . H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w , 58, 280-298. Di P i e t r o , R o b e r t J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . S t r a t e g i c i n t e r a c t i o n : l e a r n i n g languages through s c e n a r i o s . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D o u g h t y , C. & P i c a , T. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . " I n f o r m a t i o n gap" t a s k s , do t h e y f a c i l i t a t e 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 , 20, 305-325. Duff,  P a t r i c i a A.  (1995).  An e t h n o g r a p h y  of  communication i n immersion Q u a r t e r l y , 29, 505-533.  c l a s s r o o m s i n Hungary.  TESOL  E l l i s , R. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . The s t u d y o f 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 . Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. G a s s , S., & V a r o n i s , E. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . I n p u t , i n t e r a c t i o n , second language p r o d u c t i o n . S t u d i e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 16, 2 8 3-302.  and  G a s s , S., & V a r o n i s , E . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . N e g o t i a t i o n of meaning i n n o n - n a t i v e - - n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r c o n v e r s a t i o n . I n S. G a s s & C. Madden ( E d s . ) , 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 (pp. 149-161) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury House. Gove, P. B. ( E d . ) . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . W e b s t e r ' s t h i r d new i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i c t i o n a r y . S p r i n g f i e l d , MA: Merriam-Webster Inc. • • . ' , H a d l e y , A.N., (1993). T e a c h i n g Language i n C o n t e x t . B o s t o n , MA: Heinle & Heinle. ' I z u m i , S., & B i g e l o w , M. n o t i c i n g and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e 34, 239-278.  ( 2 0 0 0 ) . Does o u t p u t p r o m o t e a c q u i s i t i o n ? TESOL Q u a r t e r l y ,  I z u m i , S., B i g e l o w , M., F u j i w a r a , M.,' & Fearnow, S. (1999). T e s t i n g the output h y p o t h e s i s : E f f e c t s of n o t i c i n g 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 . S t u d i e s i n Second' L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n , 21, 421-452. J o h n s o n , D. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . A p p r o a c h e s t o 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 . New Y o r k : Longman. K a c h r u , Y. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . S o u r c e s o f b i a s i n SLA R e s e a r c h , m o n o l i n g u a l b i a s i n SLA r e s e a r c h . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 28, 7958 0 0. , Klein, Cambridge:  W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . 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 . Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  L a n t o l f , J . ( E d . ) . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . S o c i o c u l t u r a l t h e o r y and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press.  L o n g , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . 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 a d j u s t m e n t s 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 L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n , 5, 177-193. L o n g , M., & P o r t e r , P. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . G r o u p work, 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 . Q u a r t e r l y , 19, 207-227.  TESOL  L o n g , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . 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 t h e o r y . I n S. G a s s & C. Madden ( E d s . ) , 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 (pp. 377-393) . R o w l e y , MA: ' Newbury House. L o n g , M. ( 1 9 9 6 ) . The r o l e o f l i n g u i s t i c e n v i r o n m e n 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 . I n W. R i t c h i e & T. K.. B h a t i a ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f 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 (pp. 4 1 3 - 4 6 8 ) . San D i e g o : A c a d e m i c P r e s s . Nakahama, Y., T y l e r , A., & v a n L i e r , L. ( 2 0 0 1 ) . N e g o t i a t i o n o f m e a n i n g i n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and i n f o r m a t i o n gap a c t i v i t i e s : a c o m p a r a t i v e d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 35, 377-405. Ochs, E., and B. B. S c h i e f f e l i n . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Language a c q u i s i t i o n and s o c i a l i z a t i o n : T h r e e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t o r i e s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s . I n R. A. Shweder, and R.' A. L e V i n e (eds.), C u l t u r e Theory: E s s a y s on M i n d , S e l f and E m o t i o n . New Y o r k : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y , P r e s s . O h t a , A. ( 2 0 0 1 ) . 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 r o c e s s e s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . Mahwah, N J : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m . P i c a , T. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . I n t e r l a n g u a g e a d j u s t m e n t s as an outcome o f NS-NNS n e g o t i a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n . L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g , 38, 45-73. P i c a T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The i m p a c t 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 , 21, 737-758. R a m i r e z , A (1995) .. C r e a t i n g c o n t e x t s f o r 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 and m e t h o d s . New Y o r k : Longman,. R i v e r s , W. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i o n n a t u r a l l y i n a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e : t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e i n l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  S h i , L. ( 1 9 9 8 ) . Negotiated i n t e r a c t i o n i n teacher-led v e r s u s p e e r g r o u p a d u l t ESL d i s c u s s i o n s . TESL Canada • J o u r n a l , 16, 54-73. S t e v i c k , E. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Memory, m e a n i n g & method. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. S t e w a r t , E. (1985) . A m e r i c a n c u l t u r a l Y a r m o u t h , ME: I n t e r c u l t u r a l P r e s s .  Boston:  patterns.  S w a i n , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . C o m m u n i c a t i v e c o m p e t e n c e : Some r o l e s o f c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t and c o m p r e h e n s i b l e o u t p u t i n i t s d e v e l o p m e n t . I n S. Gass & C. Madden ( E d s . ) , I n p u t 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 (pp. 2 3 5 - 2 5 6 ) . R o w l e y , MA: Newbury House. T a r o n e , E. (1981) . communication s t r a t e g y .  Some t h o u g h t s on t h e n o t i o n , o f TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 15, 2 8 5 - 2 9 5 .  V y g o t s k y , L e v S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h o u g h t a n d L a n g u a g e . C a m b r i d g e : MIT P r e s s . V y g o t s k y , L e v S. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . M i n d i n S o c i e t y . C a m b r i d g e : Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. Young, R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . N e g o t i a t i o n o f outcome a n d n e g o t i a t i o n o f m e a n i n g i n ESL c l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n . Q u a r t e r l y , 18, 525-526.  TESOL  Y u l e , G., H o f f m a n , P., & Damico, J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Paying a t t e n t i o n t o p r o n u n c i a t i o n : The r o l e o f s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g i n perception. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 2 1 , 765-768.  APPENDIXES  Coding Abbreviations & Terminology (Note: All examples and terminology takenfromShi, 1998, pp. 60-68)  Initiating Negotiation:  CC= FB = CF =  Comprehension ("Do  Checks  you understand  Feedback Requests  me?")  ("Is this your idea, Kim?")  Confirmation Checks  ("Lower?") (Often repeats info, in question form...)  CR=  Clarification Requests ("What's that?")  Modification:  sc =  Self-correction  (Makes adjustments to own output)  oc =  Other-correction  (Makes adjustments to another's output)  pr = Completion Requests  ("and in some... ") (Incomplete sentence with the expectation that another will 'fill in the blanks')  op =  Other-completion  (Fills in the blanks, or gaps, for another)  FB 66  BRETT  Do you have a c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r r i g h t now? Someone y o u s p e a k E n g l i s h w i t h r e g u l a r l y ?  67  SACHI  Yeah, b u t I d i d n ' t I d i d n ' t met h e r . Because I, a c t u a l l y I I don't l i k e t h e , l i k e a nani, f e e l like...  op 68  BRETT  Kind  CR 69  SACHI  Nan  op 7 0  BRETT  I t ' skind of  pr  o f , not not p e r s o n a l ? to iu ka  naa. almost,  f r i e n d s , maybe? conversation?  you're not  Or i t ' s n o t l i k e  71  SACHI  Yes, b u t I l i k e  with  72  BRETT  Yeah  sc 73  SACHI  So, nanka, yakusoku?  friends.  a  real  Urn.  Yakusoku  means  promise CF7 4  BRETT  Promise.  sc 75  SACHI  Yakusoku  koto  ga sugoi... I d o n ' t  like. 76  BRETT  Ah, o k a y .  77  SACHI  Sooo, nanka... I have a p r e s s u r e .  78  BRETT  Yeah, l i k e you have t o be t h e r e a t a c e r t a i n time. Um, so what w o u l d make i t e a s i e r f o r you t o um have more E n g l i s h conversation?  79  SACHI  I don't  80  BRETT  Maybe b e c o m i n g  81  SACHI  Yes, maybe...  82  BRETT  L i k e m a k i n g i t n o t n o t an e d u c a t i o n a l thing, but kind of l i k e a s o c i a l t h i n g ,  83  SACHI  Y e s . Good.  FB  know. f r i e n d s with...  292  SAM  I  293  RIE  Ah,  PB 294  SAM  So, What do y o u l i k e  295  RIE  Urranmin, I l i k e  CF 296  SAM  Yeah? L i k e  297  RIE  Not And  CF 2 98  SAM  Ahh,  299  RIE  B l a c k sugar...  op 300  SAM  Kurozato  ami !  301  RIE  Kurozato  no naka  CR 302  SAM  Ofu?  303  RIE  Ofu.  CF 304  SAM  Madam*?  305  RIE  No, dry...  CF 306  SAM  Kaki ?  307  RIE  Nooo, urn I d o n ' t know, I d o n ' t know how t o e x p l a i n , b u t v e r y , v e r y good!  308  SAM  Yeah,  309  RIE  Really?  FB 310  SAM  What a b o u t  311  RIE  I don't  p r 312  SAM  Tabemono...  313  RIE  Japanese  ce  haven't  spoken  Japanese  But y o u c a n speak  i n so l o n g ,  good  Japanese!  t o eat?  Japanese  snack.  sembei?  sembei. Unn. Ofu? You know, Ofu? b l a c k sugar. You know b l a c k s u g a r ? Kuro-kuro  kurozato! Soo, so sol  Kurozato!  ni w h i t e  ofu?  Hai.  I l o v e ku-kurozato Really? like  ami!  Really? real  I mol  food,  though?  know... Un. Yappa ah...  foodo.  Mmmm.  I m i s s v e r y muci  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 8 0
China 4 1
Vietnam 3 0
Russia 1 0
France 1 0
Canada 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 6 0
Hanoi 3 0
Mountain View 2 0
Fuzhou 2 0
Beijing 1 0
Vancouver 1 0
Shenzhen 1 1
Unknown 1 11
Saint Petersburg 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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.831.1-0078229/manifest

Comment

Related Items