UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Foreigner talk in the ESL classroom : interactional adjustments to adult students at two language proficiency… Brulhart, Marilyn Mae 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 B78.pdf [ 4.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078256.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078256-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078256-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078256-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078256-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078256-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078256-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078256-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078256.ris

Full Text

FOREIGNER TALK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM: INTERACTIONAL ADJUSTMENTS TO ADULT STUDENTS AT TWO LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVELS by MARILYN M. BRULHART B. S c . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES D e p a r t m e n t o f L a n g u a g e E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA November, 1985 © M a r i l y n M. B r u l h a r t , 1985 In presenting t h i s thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Language Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: November, 1985 A b s t r a c t While native speakers adjust their speech to accommodate non-native speakers on syntactic and prosodic le v e l s , they also make adjustments on the l e v e l of discourse. It has been argued that these int e r a c t i o n a l adjustments are c r u c i a l to the promotion of language learning. A quasi-experimental, f a c t o r i a l study compared the frequencies of nine int e r a c t i o n a l features used in the speech of four ESL teachers as they taught beginner and advanced le v e l adult classes. It was expected that teachers would change their use of each feature accordingly as students neared native proficiency. Nine two-way analyses of variance were employed to capture three sources of variation in the use of the interactional features: proficiency l e v e l , teacher and proficiency l e v e l by teacher interaction. As predicted, display questions and s e l f -repetitions were used s i g n i f i c a n t l y less often with advanced students than with beginners. High v a r i a b i l i t y in teacher behaviour was discovered, and seemed to be primarily an a r t i f a c t of lesson content. In fact, discourse usage seemed to vary as a function of lesson content, as well as proficiency level of the students. One result, the marked reduction in use of display questions at the advanced l e v e l , was discussed in l i g h t of prevailing ESL goals. As research addresses the question of whether and which adjustments do promote language ac q u i s i t i o n , there w i l l be implications for teacher trai n i n g . i i Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: THE SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNER'S LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Foreigner Talk outside the classroom 4 1.3 Foreigner talk in the classroom 12 1.4 Rationale of the study 1 7 1.5 Research Question and Hypotheses 20 CHAPTER TWO: A STUDY OF TEACHERS' DISCOURSE ADJUSTMENTS IN ESL CLASSROOMS 23 2 . 1 Design 23 2.2 Method 28 2.2.1 Subjects 28 2.2.2 The ESL Classes 29 2.2.3 Proficiency Level Assignment 30 2.2.4 Data Collection 32 2.2.5 Transcription and Coding 33 2.2.6 R e l i a b i l i t y Assessment 35 2.3 Analysis 36 2.4 Limitations of the Study 39 CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41 3.1 Nine int e r a c t i o n a l features of discourse 43 3.1.1 Or-choice questions (Figure 1) 43 3.1.2 Expansions (Figure 2) 45 3.1.3 Self-Repetitions (Figure 3) 52 3.1.4 Other-Repetitions (Figure 4) 57 3.1.5 Display questions (Figure 5) 60 3.1.6 Referential Questions (Figure 6) 64 3.1.7 Comprehension Checks (Figure 7) 68 3.1.8 Confirmation Checks (Figure 8) 74 3.1.9 C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests (Figure 9) 78 3.2 Summary 78 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 81 REFERENCE NOTES 89 REFERENCES ; 90 APPENDICES 93 APPENDIX A 94 APPENDIX B 99 APPENDIX C 100 iv L i s t of Tables 1. Studies of Nine Interactional Features of Discourse 28 2. Group Means and Sources of Variation from Analyses of Variance of Use of Nine Interactional Features of Discourse with Beginner and Advanced Students ...42 v L i s t o f F i g u r e s 1. Or-choice Questions 44 2. Expansions 46 3. Self-Repetitions ....53 4. Other-Repetitions 58 5. Display Questions 61 6. Referential Questions 65 7. Comprehension Checks 69 8. Confirmation Checks 75 9. C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests 79 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have helped make thi s thesis possible. I am greatly indebted to: Dr. Kenneth Reeder for his encouragement and friendship, his expert advice, and, es p e c i a l l y , for his supportive c r i t i c i s m . Dr. Margaret Early for the immense care, time and interest she has invested in my work, and, above a l l , for her invaluable c r i t i q u e . Dr. Bernard Mohan for his enthusiasm and encouragement, and his expert advice on design, analysis and argumentation. Bob Prosser, Warren Weir, and Harry Joe for s t a t i s t i c a l advice, and Jay Handel, text-processor extraordinaire! Jane Wakefield, friend and colleague, for invaluable text-processing support and for being there. My mother, Eleanor Pretty, for her care in compiling the coded data sheets. Donna Motzer, friend and colleague, for her conscientious work in the r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t s . Robert Cunningham, Dean of Instruction, King Edward Campus of Vancouver Community College, for his interest, and and f a c i l i t a t i o n of the study. Audrey Findley and Kala MacKinlay of Vancouver Community College for their kind assistance in informing me when appropriate substitution assignments arose. And, of course, many thanks go to the teachers and students for their enthusiasm and cooperation. v i i CHAPTER ONE THE SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNER'S L I N G U I S T I C ENVIRONMENT 1.1 INTRODUCTION U n t i l recently, much of the research in the f i e l d of second language ac q u i s i t i o n (SLA) has focused on the learner's production, and attempted to document the stages of development in the acquisition process. Contemporary studies have sh i f t e d the focus to an examination of the learner's l i n g u i s t i c environment. It was discovered that native speakers (NSs) adjust their speech in conversation with non-native speakers (NNSs) on many l i n g u i s t i c levels - phonological, prosodic, syntactic and l e x i c a l (Ferguson 1971, 1975, Hatch, Shapira & Gough 1975, Snow, van Eeden & Muysken 1981, Freed 1981). These studies examined NS-NNS conversations outside classrooms. Adjustments to speech input in the classroom were also investigated (Henzl 1973, 1979, Gaies 1977, Chaudron 1979). While several of the studies mentioned discourse techniques such as re p e t i t i o n and confirmation checks (e.g. Do you mean ...?) (Hatch, Shapira & Gough 1975, Chaudron 1979, Freed 1981), none of these features were quantified. The focus of research s h i f t e d once again when Long (1981a, p.259) made an important d i s t i n c t i o n between input modifications to the l i n g u i s t i c forms used, and int e r a c t i o n a l modifications to the functions served by those 1 2 forms, such as repetition or confirmation checking. Research then began to address and quantify NSs' discourse modifications to NNSs outside classrooms (Long 1981a, 1981b, Scarcella & Higa 1981, Gaies 1982), and within classrooms (Long & Sato 1983, Long 1983c, Pica & Long 1982, Early in press). The present study explores teachers' language usage in the classroom. It looks at some inte r a c t i o n a l features of discourse which have been investigated in NS-NNS conversations, in most cases both in and out of classrooms. However, no study has as yet addressed the question of the extent to which the use of these pa r t i c u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n a l features d i f f e r s across language proficiency levels of the students. (For differences in use of input features across proficiency levels see Gaies 1977, Chaudron 1979). This study attempts to do that. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t seeks to discover the relationship between adult ESL students' language proficiency l e v e l in beginner and advanced classes and their teachers' adjustments to conversational interaction in formal classroom discussion. Interactional (or conversational) adjustments were chosen for study as opposed to input adjustments in part because the former have not been been as widely studied as the l a t t e r , and, in part, in the l i g h t of Long's claim as to their importance in providing comprehensible target language to the learner (Long 1983a, p.1). 3 The aim of assessing teachers' conversational adjustments at dif f e r e n t proficiency levels was addressed in a quasi-experimental study in which four teachers were recorded in teacher-fronted interaction of their own choosing with ESL classes at both the beginner and advanced l e v e l s . The proportions of nine interactional features of discourse were assessed at the two language proficiency levels for each teacher, and the d i f f e r e n t i a l between proficiency levels compared across teachers. This was accomplished by a 2 X 4 f a c t o r i a l design in which, besides proficiency l e v e l , teacher was also considered an independent variable. This study i s unique in that regard. In other studies NSs have been considered equally good representatives of a common behaviour construct. The nine in t e r a c t i o n a l features are also examined for the appropriateness of a single l e v e l taxonomy in which the only commonality between any of the features is their i n t e r a c t i o n a l nature. The importance of the study l i e s in i t s contribution to our knowledge of the learners' l i n g u i s t i c environment in the second language classroom. A characterization of NS-NNS discourse for various contexts, tasks and addressees is a necessary prerequisite to the study of which modifications, i f any, actually do f a c i l i t a t e second language a c q u i s i t i o n . When the f i e l d advances to a point where we are armed with the knowledge of what teachers actually do, we can hope to be in a position to make recommendations for more e f f e c t i v e 4 teaching and teacher t r a i n i n g . The report has the following structure. The next section of Chapter 1 presents an overview of research into adult-adult NS-NNS ('foreigner talk') registers in and out of classrooms. A j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the study follows, and then the research question and hypotheses are formulated. Chapter 2 describes the study, i t s experiment and design, subjects, data c o l l e c t i o n , t r anscription and coding, and a n a l y t i c a l procedures. Limitations of the study are pointed out. Chapter 3 presents results and discussion of the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the frequencies of the nine i n t e r a c t i o n a l features. Conclusions and implications are presented in Chapter 4, whereby some additional research, which is in a sense 'ahead' of thi s study, i s highlighted. 1 .2 FOREIGNER TALK OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM Foreigner talk (FT) i s a term coined by Ferguson (1971,p.1) to refer to A register of s i m p l i f i e d speech ... used by speakers of a language to outsiders who are f e l t to have very l i m i t e d command of the language or no knowledge of i t at a l l . His pioneering study (Ferguson 1975) set the tone for much of the subsequent research by highlighting phonological, l e x i c a l and grammatical adjustments. University students 5 were asked to rewrite ten English sentences as they would address them to i l l i t e r a t e non-Europeans and comment on other features of the communication. These data, along with some l i t e r a r y material, were the basis for his extensive catalogue of FT features. Among them are: • slow rate of delivery • loudness • cleaner a r t i c u l a t i o n • exaggerated pronunciation • more pauses • more emphatic stress • use of loan words and pidginized forms • omission of a r t i c l e s , copula and do-support • multiple negation • uninverted questions. Other researchers began recording speech in various natural settings such as a NS in casual conversation with a NNS friend, an ESL teacher in casual conversation with his students, service personnel during c a l l s from NNSs (Hatch, Shapira & Gough 1975), and municipal employees addressing foreign workers (Snow, van Eeden & Muysken 1981). Adjustments seemed to be pervasive in a l l these NS-NNS conversations. There were variations in the findings across d i f f e r e n t conditions, but some commonalities began to emerge. NS speech to NNSs was found to contain shorter utterances, lower syntactic complexity and more avoidance of low frequency l e x i c a l items and idiomatic expressions than 6 NS-NS speech. The evidence on the matter of grammaticality i s c o n f l i c t i n g , because some studies (e.g. the studies c i t e d above) reported widespread use of ungrammatical speech, while others found none at a l l . For example, Freed (1981) found no instances of ungrammatical usage in the speech of students in conversation with NNS students. Long (1983a) suggests that ungrammaticality occurs only i f two or more of the following conditions are met: 1) the NNS has low target language proficiency, 2) the NS considers himself of higher s o c i a l status, 3) the NS has considerable foreigner talk experience, and 4) the conversation is spontaneous. Elsewhere he maintains that factors 1, 2 and 4 seem to be necessary for ungrammaticality to occur (Long 1983b). Factor 4 would not as a rule pertain to a formal classroom setting, providing an explanation for the absence of ungrammatical speech in teachers' speech to second language learners in the studies reviewed in the following section. A p a r a l l e l has been drawn between FT and adult speech to young children, c a l l e d caretaker speech or baby talk (Snow & Ferguson 1977). It is not surprising that they have s i m i l a r i t i e s given that both are specialized registers for language learners of limited proficiency (albeit of d i f f e r i n g types - adult versus c h i l d , second versus f i r s t language). Aside from the ungrammatical adjustments, most of the FT features mentioned above have been reported in baby talk (Freed 1981, Hatch 1983). However, Freed (1981) claims 7 t h e r e i s a f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e i n the two k i n d s of speech: baby t a l k i s g e n e r a l l y aimed a t d i r e c t i n g b e h a v i o u r , whereas f o r e i g n e r t a l k i s aimed a t f a c i l i t a t i n g an exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n . These e a r l i e r s t u d i e s f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n on a d j u s t m e n t s a t the p h o n o l o g i c a l , p r o s o d i c , l e x i c a l , and, m a i n l y , s y n t a c t i c l e v e l s of l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s . More r e c e n t l y , Long (1981a) has made a d i s t i n c t i o n between m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the l i n g u i s t i c form of speech a c t s , f o rming i n p u t t o the NNS, and m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the f u n c t i o n s of those a c t s , which determine the c h a r a c t e r of i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the NNS. Form m o d i f i c a t i o n s a re p h o n o l o g i c a l , p r o s o d i c , s y n t a c t i c or l e x i c a l , w h i l e i n t e r a c t i o n m o d i f i c a t i o n s t a k e p l a c e a t the l e v e l of d i s c o u r s e . The f o l l o w i n g examples (Long 1983a, p.4) se r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e both what i s meant by t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , and the f a c t t h a t i n p u t and the f a c t t h a t i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n m o d i f i c a t i o n s can occur i n d e p e n d e n t l y . (1) NS-NS speech NS: When d i d you f i n i s h ? NS: Ten. (2) F o r e i g n e r T a l k - m o d i f i c a t i o n i n form o n l y NS: What time you f i n i s h ? NNS: Ten o ' c l o c k . (3) F o r e i g n e r T a l k - m o d i f i c a t i o n i n f u n c t i o n o n l y NS: When d i d you f i n i s h ? NNS: Urn? NS: When d i d you f i n i s h ? NNS: Ten c l o c k . NS: Ten o ' c l o c k ? NNS: Yeah. 8 Exchanges l i k e example (2) are often found in conversations between NS factory foremen and migrant workers. The input modifications (uninverted WH-question, do deletion and lack of verb i n f l e c t i o n ) allowed the NNS to understand readily and the result in int e r a c t i o n a l terms is a normal two-turn exchange. Example (3) i s t y p i c a l of exchanges in studies between speakers of similar s o c i a l status. The utterance form has not deviated from the NS-NS norms, but the inte r a c t i o n a l structure of the conversation has. The NS added a s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n and a confirmation check, resulting in a six-turn exchange to accomplish what the NS-NS exchange does in two. As i s apparent from t h i s example, examining interaction involves utterances in context, that i s , takes into account the surrounding utterances of both speakers. For instance, the confirmation check in (3) can only be recognized as such in l i g h t of the NNS' preceding utterance. It should also be noted that interactional aspects of foreigner talk are a l l phenomena found in NS-NS speech. The greater frequency of use of these features in FT is what distinguishes i t from NS-NS speech. In subsequent work, Long (1983c) has argued that a comprehensible target language environment is necessary for language a c q u i s i t i o n . He points out that i t was widely assumed, as reflected in the focus of e a r l i e r studies, that modifications to speech input such as shorter, less s y n t a c t i c a l l y complex utterances were solely responsible for comprehensibility (Long 1983a, p.1). He refutes t h i s stance 9 based on the l o g i c a l impossibility of learners ever advancing i f input i s consistently modified to match their competence. Learners are exposed to forms beyond their competence, he argues, but in order to process and eventually acquire them, the speech must somehow be made comprehensible. He suggests that t h i s is done through change at the l e v e l of discourse, i . e . , modification of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l structure of conversation through devices such as s e l f - and other-repetition, confirmation checks (e.g. Do you mean ... ?), comprehension checks (e.g. Do you understand?) and c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests (e.g. I don't understand) (Long 1983c, p.211). Evidence for the pervasiveness of interactional modifications is found in Long's comparison of the speech of NSs to NNSs in conversation generated by six dif f e r e n t tasks (1981a). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the two types of NS speech on 4 out of 5 measures of input modification. NSs used s i g n i f i c a n t l y shorter utterances in addressing the NNSs, but measures of syntactic complexity, and l e x i c a l density and frequency were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in the two groups. However, frequencies of 10 out of 11 i n t e r a c t i o n a l measures were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . NS speech to foreigners as compared to that of other NSs contained • more orientation to the "here and now" • more questions than statements or imperatives (probably to be taken in the pragmatic sense of question, 10 statement and order, rather than the syntactic one of declarative, interrogative and imperative) • more WH-questions than other types • more confirmation checks • more comprehension checks • more c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests • more s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s • more other-repetitions • more other expansions • more of a l l of the above combined. But the differences on interactional measures were, in general, greater for the three tasks requiring a two-way exchange of information (conversation and game-playing). These results suggest that i t i s some aspect of the verbal feedback provided by learners that prompts NSs to adjust their speech, and that this feedback s p e c i f i c a l l y encourages adjustments of the interactional type. Long (1981b) extends evidence of in t e r a c t i o n a l modification to other measures and kinds of interlocutors in another laboratory study. The data consists of 36 informal NS-NNS conversations between college educated NSs (12 of whom were ESL teachers and 12 other types of teachers), and beginner l e v e l Japanese NNSs from a college ESL program. The participants, who were previously unacquainted, were asked to have a five-minute conversation on any topic. Contrary to previous findings, present tense verbs were not used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more often than nonpresent time reference. 11 Topics were d e a l t with more b r i e f l y , and s i g n i f i c a n t l y more yes/no q u e s t i o n s were used to generate them. Over a l l types of moves, there were more u n i n v e r t e d questions, fewer WH-qu e s t i o n s , more qu e s t i o n s i n g e n e r a l , and more o r - c h o i c e questions i n FT than i n N S - N S c o n v e r s a t i o n . Gaies (1982) p a r t i a l l y r e p l i c a t e d t h i s study. H i s p a i r s were f a m i l i a r with one another, enjoyed academic peer s t a t u s through which they had a body of shared knowledge, and h i s NNSs were c o n s i d e r a b l y p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h . In general the f i n d i n g s c o r r o b o r a t e the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s found to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n i n Long's s t u d i e s (1981a, 1981b). There are some v a r i a t i o n s which Gaies a t t r i b u t e s to the NNSs' higher E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y and the i n t e r l o c u t o r s ' shared knowledge: the t o p i c s were not t r e a t e d as b r i e f l y here as i n other NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s and more topic-nominations took the form of n o n - i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . NS-NNS and NS-NS c o n v e r s a t i o n s d i f f e r in s e v e r a l other ways (Long 1983b). Among them a r e : • more acceptance of t o p i c switches • more l e f t - d i s l o c a t i o n of t o p i c words • more q u e s t i o n and answer p a i r s • more decomposition of q u e s t i o n s . Long (1983a) proposes a p r e l i m i n a r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h i s a r r a y of d i v e r s e f e a t u r e s through r e c o g n i t i o n of two main purposes i n employing i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments. The f i r s t i s to a v o i d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t r o u b l e (these d e v i c e s are c a l l e d s t r a t e g i e s ) , and the second i s to r e p a i r t r o u b l e when 12 conversational breakdown does occur (called t a c t i c s ) . Strategies generally result from long-term planning on the part of the NS. They a f f e c t both what and how topics are talked about, and include relinquishing topic control through or-choice questions, treating topics b r i e f l y , and use of comprehension checks. Tactics r e f l e c t a reaction in the short term. They a f f e c t how a topic i s handled, and include c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests and confirmation checks. Some devices can be used to avoid or repair trouble. They include both s e l f - and other-repetitions, and pauses and emphatic stress. This taxonomy i s c l e a r l y not intended to be exhaustive, but i t seems to me that expansions would f i t into the t h i r d category as another type of repetition which can serve to avoid or repair conversational breakdown. 1.3 FOREIGNER TALK IN THE CLASSROOM Early classroom studies focused on adjustments to l i n g u i s t i c input made by second language teachers. The comparison was usually made to NS-NS discourse outside classrooms. It was found that SL teachers use shorter utterances, simpler syntactic structures and more frequent l e x i c a l items (Henzl 1973, 1979, Gaies 1977). Gaies (1977) carried out a syntactic comparison of eight ESL teacher-trainees' speech to their students in the classroom and to NSs outside the classroom. He found that ESL teachers' speech was s y n t a c t i c a l l y less complex on six measures. Furthermore, these modifications were c l o s e l y t i e d to the proficiency 13 l e v e l of the students. That i s , they were most pronounced for teachers of beginners and became less so as the proficiency level of the students approached that of native speakers. Chaudron's findings (1979) corroborated Gaies', but noted individual differences in l e v e l of syntactic complexity among teachers with the same l e v e l of students. He also reported trends similar to Gaies' across d i f f e r e n t levels of proficiency, although these teachers s i m p l i f i e d less with low le v e l beginners than did Gaies' trainees. The difference is perhaps attributable to Chaudron's teachers' greater teaching experience. The f i r s t study to quantify i n t e r a c t i o n a l data of classroom FT was Long & Sato (1983). They compared ESL teachers' speech with NS-NNS conversations outside the classroom. They chose NS-NNS rather than NS-NS speech as baseline data in order to compare the two types of acq u i s i t i o n , second language teaching in the classroom and immersion in a n a t u r a l i s t i c setting. But more important, t h i s choice of baseline data avoided the confounding of contextual and addressee factors present in other studies (e.g. Gaies 1977). Six teachers were audiotaped teaching t h e i r regular beginner l e v e l adult students a 50-minute lesson not especially prepared for the experiment. The NS-NNS data outside the classroom were 36 informal five-minute conversations on any topic between college-educated NSs (many of whom were teachers) and beginner-level Japanese 1 4 NNSs ( L o n g 1 9 8 1 b ) . The ESL t e a c h e r s ' s p e e c h was f o u n d t o be v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t on s e v e r a l m e a s u r e s f r o m t h a t o f NSs i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h NNSs. Two p o i n t s a r e o f i n t e r e s t h e r e . Whereas d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s were v i r t u a l l y unknown o u t s i d e t h e c l a s s r o o m , t h e y c o n s t i t u t e d h a l f o f a l l q u e s t i o n s p o s e d i n t h e ESL i n s t r u c t i o n , and were t w i c e a s p l e n t i f u l a s r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t i s r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s w h i c h p r e d o m i n a t e o u t s i d e t h e c l a s s r o o m . B a s e d on t h i s e v i d e n c e , L o n g and S a t o p r o n o u n c e t h e ESL c l a s s r o o m t o be s a d l y l a c k i n g i n c o m m u n i c a t i v e u s e of l a n g u a g e , and s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t f u l f i l l i n g i t s g o a l o f p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y f o r l i f e o u t s i d e t h e c l a s s r o o m . L o n g ( 1 9 8 3 c ) , u s i n g t h e same two c o r p o r a , d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e ESL t e a c h e r s e m p l o y e d g r e a t e r numbers o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n c h e c k s , b u t f e w e r 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 . From t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f d i r e c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w , t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e n o t u n e x p e c t e d . L o n g m a i n t a i n e d t h a t i f i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w i s l a r g e l y f r o m t e a c h e r t o s t u d e n t , w h i c h i s l i k e l y a t b e g i n n e r l e v e l s , t h e n c o m p r e h e n s i o n c h e c k s w i l l a b o u n d , w h e r e a s t h e r e w i l l be l i t t l e n e e d t o i n q u i r e f u r t h e r a s t o what a s t u d e n t s a i d u s i n g c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k s o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s . T h e s e f i n d i n g s were c o r r o b o r a t e d i n t h e f i r s t p a r t o f a s t u d y by P i c a and L ong ( 1 9 8 2 ) . They a l s o d i s c o v e r e d t h a t ESL t e a c h e r s ' c l a s s r o o m s p e e c h d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n l e n g t h o r s y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y f r o m NS-NNS s p e e c h o u t s i d e 15 c l a s s r o o m s . The second p a r t of the study compared the adj u s t m e n t s of e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s . In l i g h t of the f i n d i n g i n the f i r s t p a r t , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t i n p u t measures d i d not show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . On i n t e r a c t i v e measures, however, they r e p o r t t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s used more sta t e m e n t s and i m p e r a t i v e s and fewer q u e s t i o n s than i n e x p e r i e n c e d ones. They a l s o used more WH-q u e s t i o n s , fewer yes/no q u e s t i o n s , and more o t h e r -r e p e t i t i o n s . In i n v e s t i g a t i n g FT i n the c l a s s r o o m i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e c o g n i z e the f a c t t h a t language t e a c h e r s make a d j u s t m e n t s by v i r t u e of the r o l e i t s e l f - g i v i n g r i s e t o a r e g i s t e r c a l l e d t e a c h e r t a l k - i n a d d i t i o n t o those' made i n response t o the l i m i t e d language p r o f i c i e n c y of t h e i r s t u d e n t s . E a r l y ( i n p r e s s ) compared ESL and r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s ' speech t o beginner and i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l NNSs and c l a s s e s of n a t i v e and p r o f i c i e n t n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s c l a s s e s a t the h i g h s c h o o l l e v e l . The e x t e n t t o which they d i f f e r i n d i c a t e s d i m e n s i o n s of FT p r e s e n t i n the ESL t e a c h e r s ' speech. T h e i r l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t c o n t a i n e d s h o r t e r , l e s s s y n t a c t i c a l l y complex u t t e r a n c e s . W i t h r e s p e c t t o 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 , ESL t e a c h e r s ' employed q u e s t i o n s , s t a t e m e n t s , and i m p e r a t i v e s i n d i f f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s . They a l s o used more e x p a n s i o n s , more s e l f - and o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s , more comprehension checks and more c o n v e r s a t i o n a l frames than r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s . 16 Teacher talk c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were investigated in that study by comparing teachers' adjustments with NNSs to those made by NSs in dyad conversations outside the classroom (using the study reported in Long 1981a). The extent to which adjustments d i f f e r indicates aspects of teachers' foreigner t a l k . Teachers seldom used c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests or confirmation checks, whereas they are both employed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more often in FT as opposed to native talk outside classrooms (Long 1981a). Teachers employed WH-, yes/no, intonation and tag questions in similar proportions whether addressing NSs or NNSs, whereas NSs outside classrooms d i f f e r e d substantially in proportional use of these question types (WH-questions predominate in ESL instruction, whereas yes/no questions are the most frequent type of question in NS-NNS conversations outside classrooms). One of the purposes of Early's study was to tease out which adjustments are features of teacher talk and which of FT. The results suggest that use of c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests and confirmation checks, and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of WH-, yes/no, intonation and tag questions are not influenced by the limited proficiency of the students, but by the setting and role of the classroom and teacher. On the other hand, the use of expansions, s e l f - and other-repetitions, comprehension checks, conversational frames, and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of questions, imperatives and statements seem to be aspects of foreigner talk, i . e . , to be influenced by 17 the l i m i t e d l i n g u i s t i c p r o f i c i e n c y of the s t u d e n t s . I t remains f o r E a r l y ' s l a r g e r study t o det e r m i n e whether each of the presumed FT or t e a c h e r t a l k f e a t u r e s i s not a c t u a l l y a f e a t u r e of a more s p e c i a l i z e d FT of t e a c h e r s or a f e a t u r e of a more s p e c i a l i z e d t e a c h e r t a l k r e g i s t e r of second language t e a c h e r s (see Reference Note 1 ) . 1.4 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY In r e c e n t y e a r s r e s e a r c h e r s have t u r n e d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n from the p r o d u c t of a c q u i s i t i o n t o the p r o c e s s of a c q u i s i t i o n . I n t e g r a l t o the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the language l e a r n e r s ' l i n g u i s t i c environment, because t a r g e t language i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n a r e c r i t i c a l d a ta on which l e a r n e r s base and t e s t hypotheses about use of the new language. S t u d i e s have shown t h a t t a r g e t language t o second language l e a r n e r s d i f f e r s i n many ways from speech d i r e c t e d t o NSs. W h i l e v a r i o u s m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o the forms of l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t a re e v i d e n t , i t has been argued t h a t i t i s m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o the l i n g u i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n which are i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s (Long 1981a). In the r e s e a r c h e r ' s o p i n i o n , however, t h i s statement s h o u l d be more c a r e f u l l y q u a l i f i e d . Input m o d i f i c a t i o n s a re a l s o n e c e s s a r y and i m p o r t a n t , and can be viewed as a f i r s t s t e p i n the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s . I t i s the r e m a i n i n g i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e forms (which need t o appear i n i n p u t -a d j u s t e d speech t o some e x t e n t f o r p r o g r e s s t o be p o s s i b l e ) which n e c e s s i t a t e a d j u s t m e n t s a t the l e v e l of d i s c o u r s e . 18 These adjustments allow access to meaning and the meaning i s the link the learner needs to acquire the new forms. Therefore, I would suggest that both input and i n t e r a c t i o n a l modifications are indispensable to the acquis i t i o n process. P a r a l l e l to developments in acquisition theory, there has been a growing interest in classroom process research (for a review see Gaies 1983) with a view to describing and determining the effectiveness of the second language classroom experience as opposed to acq u i s i t i o n in other sett ings. Empirical studies which have addressed the inter a c t i o n a l quality of ESL teachers' speech are few (Long & Sato 1983, Pica & Long 1982, Early in press). While the phenomenon of individual v a r i a b i l i t y in FT behaviour among NSs in the classroom has been recognized (Long 1983b, Chaudron 1979), there is a need to address these impressions more e x p l i c i t l y . Several studies have investigated the differences in input modifications across proficiency l e v e l s . At higher levels of ESL proficiency, syntactic complexity appears to be greater (Gaies 1977, Henzl 1979, Chaudron 1979, Freed 1981). A few interactional modifications have been studied across proficiency l e v e l s . For some teaching strategies including the use of WH-questions and exact and semantic r e p e t i t i o n , Hamayan and Tucker (1980) report no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in usage in comparing French classroom speech to NSs and second language learners, nor were there any 19 differences between grade levels three and f i v e . In addition, Freed (1981) found that surface sentence type did not vary between beginner and advanced l e v e l s . Gaies (1982) found evidence that i n t e r a c t i o n a l modifications are affected by proficiency l e v e l for some measures and not for others. Topics were treated less b r i e f l y with advanced students, and the l a t t e r made more of the topic nominations. On the other hand, there was, for instance, no effect of proficiency l e v e l on question types in topic nominations. Many of the int e r a c t i o n a l features investigated in Long's and other recent research have not been examined across proficiency l e v e l s , however. This study attempts to f i l l that gap. The int e r a c t i o n a l features chosen w i l l be described in Chapter 2. Investigation of this topic w i l l , f i r s t , shed some l i g h t on the theoreti c a l question of which features should be attributed to FT. Interactional features that change s i g n i f i c a n t l y across levels are more l i k e l y FT features ( i . e . , features affected by the limited proficiency of the learner), than they are teacher talk features ( i . e . , modifications due to the teacher role and classroom se t t i n g ) , or native talk features. Second, i f ESL teachers' speech more nearly approximates native talk at advanced levels of instruction than at beginner levels ( i . e . , i f the numbers of those features which have been shown to be ch a r a c t e r i s t i c of FT decrease), there is some evidence to counter the charges of a r t i f i c i a l i t y of second language 20 classroom discourse. Third, this study w i l l add to our knowledge of how and when ESL 'teachers modify their i n t e r a c t i o n with students. Knowledge of this type is a l o g i c a l f i r s t step before addressing the question: Which modifications, i f any, f a c i l i t a t e second language learning? Once the form of language input has been described, i t becomes essential to study i t s function in second language learning. (Hamayan & Tucker 1980, p.453) There w i l l be eventual repercussions for teacher training to the extent that teachers do not naturally adjust in ways which prove to be b e n e f i c i a l to language learning, and to the extent that they do not behave consistently from ind i v i d u a l to individual and across time. 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES Based on these considerations, the central purpose of the present study is to investigate the relationship between students' language proficiency l e v e l and use of i n t e r a c t i o n a l features by four teachers in adult ESL classrooms. The research question to be addressed i s : Do the frequencies of interactional features c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of foreigner talk d i f f e r in ESL teachers' speech to students of d i f f e r e n t English proficiency levels? In p a r t i c u l a r , do they d i f f e r in those teachers' speech to beginner and advanced ESL classes? The research hypotheses derived from the research question 21 are: 1 . The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer or-choice questions. 2 . The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer expansions. 3. The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s . 4. The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer other-repetitions. 5 . The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer display questions. 6 . The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e f e r e n t i a l questions. 7. The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer comprehension checks. 8. The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer confirmation checks. 9. The ESL teachers' speech to advanced students, as compared to beginner students, w i l l contain 22 s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests. These hypotheses considered together mean that teachers are expected to approach a NS-NS teacher talk register as their students approach NS proficiency. CHAPTER TWO A STUDY OF-TEACHERS' DISCOURSE ADJUSTMENTS IN ESL CLASSROOMS 2.1 DESIGN A quasi-experimental study was conducted in which n a t u r a l i s t i c data were coll e c t e d of four teachers' classroom speech as they c a r r i e d out formal, teacher-centred instruction of adults at the beginner and advanced l e v e l of a community, college ESL program. Independent variables were: 1. student English proficiency l e v e l , at two points: beginner and advanced. 2. teacher at four points: teacher 1, teacher 2, teacher 3 and teacher 4. While other studies of foreigner talk have treated subjects as equally good representatives of a common NS behaviour construct, here that assumption was tested in the treatment of teacher as a separate variable. Further technical discussion on the use of teacher as an independent variable i s to be found in the analysis section. Dependent variables were: 1 1 . Or-choice questions These include a choice of two or more possible answers in the questioning move. For example,2 1The unit of analysis for each variable was the utterance. The 'Transcription and Coding' section contains an e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n . 2 I n the examples to follow, the f i r s t number after 'T' designates which teacher is speaking, and the second bracketed number designates the number of an utterance in a 23 T 1 ( 1 ) : Did the rest of you S: No. read t h i s a r t i c l e too? T 1 ( 2 ) : Or you heard i t on the radio or TV? 2 . Expansions The NS repeats a l l or part of their own or the NNS's preceding utterance and includes grammatical function(s) not supplied previously. For example, S: By bus. T3: You came by bus? 3. S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s NSs repeat their own utterances, either p a r t i a l l y or completely, with an exact or semantic r e p e t i t i o n ( i . e . paraphrase) within 5 conversational turns of the o r i g i n a l utterance. For example, T1 (1 ) : Does that look familiar to you? T 1 ( 2 ) : The picture looks pretty f a m i l i a r , doesn't i t ? 4. Other-repetitions The d e f i n i t i o n i s i d e n t i c a l to that for s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n except that the NS repeats the NNS' utterance. For example, 2(cont'd) sequence of discourse. Examples are separated by a series of asterisks. 25 T4(1): And he i s — ? S: Hungry. T4(2): Hungry. 5. Display questions These are test or known information questions to which the speaker knows the answer or in which he i s not interested from the point of view of content. Some examples are, T1: When do you come to school every day? (the aim being to practise the present habitual) ********** T1 : Say the whole sentence. ********** T1(1): When did you come to S: XX Canada? T l ( 2 ) : I came — ? (r i s i n g intonation s i g n a l l i n g incomplete utterance) ********** T2: What do we c a l l that -money back, money back? 6. Referential questions 26 These are information questions which e l i c i t unknown information or attitudes in which the speaker is interested. For example, T1: What did you read about? ********** T1: Is that a democratic way? 7. Comprehension checks An utterance, often formed with a tag question, which seeks to establish whether that speaker's preceding utterance has been understood. For example, T3: Do you know -understand 'leave'? ********** T3: So, past tense i s -from yesterday -come/came, right? 8. Confirmation checks They e l i c i t confirmation that an utterance has been co r r e c t l y heard and/or understood by the speaker. For example, S: X does i t mean? T1 : What does i t mean? (r i s i n g intonation) ********** 27 S: F i n i s h . T4: Finish? 9. C l a r i f i c a t i o n requests Any expression by a NS designed to e l i c i t an explanation of the NNS's previous utterance. For example, T1 : I'm sorry, what kind of steak? Or statements and orders such as 'I don't understand" and 'Try again'. More complete d e f i n i t i o n s , examples, coding conventions and sources for each of the dependent variables can be found in Appendix A. The pa r t i c u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n a l features measured in this study have been chosen from among those studied by Long and other researchers (Long 1981a,1981b, Pica & Long 1982, Long & Sato 1983, Long et a l 1984, Early in press). Table 1 l i s t s the studies in both settings which have examined each feature of discourse. A few of the d e f i n i t i o n s employed here are s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from those employed by these other researchers. The differences are pointed out in Appendix A. 28 Table 1. Studies of Nine Interactional Features of Discourse Interact ional Feature Inside Classrooms Outside Classrooms Or-choice Questions Long 1981b Expansions Early in press Long 1981a S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s Pica & Long 1982 Early in press Long 1981a Other-repetitions Pica & Long 1982 Early in press Long 1981a Display Questions Pica & Long 1982 Long & Sato 1983 Long et a l . 1984 Referent i a l Questions Pica & Long 1982 Long & Sato 1983 Long et a l . 1984 Comprehension Checks Pica & Long 1982 Early in press Long 1981a Conf i rmat ion Checks Pica & Long 1982 Early in press Long 1981a C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests Pica & Long 1982 Early in press Long 1981a 2.2 METHOD 2.2.1 SUBJECTS The subjects were four ESL teachers in the English Language Training (ELT) department at the King Edward Campus of Vancouver Community College. The one male and three female teachers a l l had at least f i v e years of ESL teaching experience, and are between 32 and 45 years of age. See the 29 l e f t hand section of Appendix B for d e t a i l s . There were no extremes in teaching style or method: that i s , none of the unconventional teaching methods was used, such as Counselling Learning or Suggestopoedia, and my impression was that there were no idiosyncratic behaviours, with one possible exception: a large proportion of teacher 4's utterances at both levels were conversational frames -primarily 'Okay' to bound utterances and to sign a l task complet ion. Since there were only four observations at each l e v e l and i t was not assumed that teachers behave the same, i t was necessary to control for the factor of teacher v a r i a b i l i t y in comparing teacher behaviour with beginner and advanced students - th i s was accomplished by observing the same teacher at both l e v e l s . 2.2.2 THE ESL CLASSES Most of the classes were taped on the f i r s t or second day of a substitution assignment, and two were regular classes taped within a few days of the beginning of the semester. A l l the teachers, therefore, were in a similar position with respect to teacher-student f a m i l i a r i t y . It was necessary to design the study around the observation of substitute teachers because i t was impossible to find four teachers who were teaching beginners and advanced classes simultaneously. 30 The majority of the classes were in the Halftime ELT program at the college; of the rest, two were in the Manpower program, and one in the Night School program. The students were a l l adults and a l l classes contained both males and females from a variety of f i r s t language backgrounds. Oriental backgrounds were predominant, however, with seven of eight classes having between 64% and 92% Oriental L1 speakers. The average number of students per class was 16. See the right hand side of Appendix B for further d e t a i l . 2.2.3 PROFICIENCY LEVEL ASSIGNMENT The ELT program at Vancouver Community College/King Edward Campus has a f i v e - l e v e l proficiency placement scale ranging from Lower Beginners to Advanced (whereby Night School ELT has two sublevels within each of the f i r s t four). Two lower l e v e l observations were made in the Halftime program and two in the Manpower program, a l l at the Lower Beginners l e v e l . Each program has i t s own placement tests. The procedures, based on oral interviews and multiple choice grammar tests, are comparable, but, in the informed opinion of the testing unit, the Manpower lower beginners are somewhat lower in proficiency than the Halftime lower beginners. At the advanced l e v e l , three of the observations were made in the Halftime program and one in Night School. Having attained an upper range score in an oral interview and 31 multiple choice desk test designed to place beginners and intermediate students in the Halftime program, students take the English Language Assessment (ELA), a standardized test developed at the college. It measures proficiency in six areas: reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, l i s t e n i n g comprehension, grammar, written composition, and oral production. The f i r s t four sections are considered by one of the developers to be comparable to the TOEFL test (Test of English as a Foreign Language). The ELA was designed to assess English language a b i l i t y from the intermediate to university l e v e l . Total test r e l i a b i l i t y is .95. The t h i r d lowest score range admits a student to the advanced l e v e l , higher scores to college preparatory and college content classes. The fourth observation in the advanced group was a Night School class at the Intermediate 4/Advanced l e v e l . This program has i t s own placement instrument. After an oral interview, a higher l e v e l student is given the Intermediate 4/Advanced test, which has l i s t e n i n g comprehension, writing, reading comprehension, and structure/grammar components. This class was at a lower l e v e l o r a l l y than the other advanced classes in my opinion. A representative of the testing unit suggested that Night School advanced classes are generally somewhat lower in proficiency than Halftime advanced classes, and the presence of intermediate l e v e l students could have added to this e f f e c t . 32 2.2.4 DATA COLLECTION The researcher audio-taped a l l of the observations in as unobtrusive a manner as possible. (She discarded the idea of observing from a window washer's platform with a microphone running in through the window on the grounds that i t might be counter-productive). None of the subjects knew the purpose of the study, but they were to l d that teacher-student interaction was under scrutiny. They were asked to carry out a regular lesson, but t o l d that any group work or non-teacher-fronted a c t i v i t y would not be recorded. The subjects introduced the researcher b r i e f l y at the beginning of class, and the lesson proceeded in a l l cases with seemingly no regard for the intrusion. At least an hour of teacher-whole class interaction was recorded in each of the eight classes. Notes were taken when written information or gestures seemed essential to understanding discourse intent. Identical lessons for a l l classes in a proficiency l e v e l were not used for two reasons. F i r s t , the unnaturalness of a lesson not prepared by the teachers themselves could af f e c t the naturalness of the conversational interaction between teachers and students, and skew the r e s u l t s . And, second, findings based on the analysis of n a t u r a l i s t i c data tend to be more generalizable. 33 2.2.5 TRANSCRIPTION AND CODING Forty-five minutes of tape-recorded material were transcribed from each of the eight samples. Introductions and warm-up conversation at the beginning of the class were omitted, so that the data sets contain lesson material only. The unit of analysis was the utterance. The rationale for t h i s choice was that each interactional variable i s generally realized l i n g u i s t i c a l l y in an utterance (or sometimes more, in the case of or-choice questions). A new utterance was defined when 1 . a new speaker begins a conversational turn, or 2. the same speaker, within a conversational turn, ends a tone group as signalled by the presence of at least one primary stress followed by a terminal intonation contour and pause juncture (Reeder 1982). For example, T1 : If she would say i t , she would say "I can't cope" - always followed by 'with' -"I can't cope with a l l the work". This was one utterance because there was no terminal contour and no pause u n t i l 'work'. Each utterance of teachers' speech was then coded to r e f l e c t instances of the nine interactional variables. Appendix A contains d e f i n i t i o n s , examples and coding 3 4 conventions for each of the features. To maximize independence between the various measures, i t is advisable to avoid double coding, which proved to be impossible with a single l e v e l taxonomy. For example, (Advanced students in a lesson on TV guide reading) T1 (1 ) : How about 56? T1(2) : Where i s i t on 56? Teacher 1's second utterance i s both a display question and a s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n . E x i s t i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s did not provide a way to consign such overlapping pairs of codes to di f f e r e n t subgroups (for instance, Long's d i s t i n c t i o n between strategies and t a c t i c s ) . The key seemed to l i e in the fact that there were, in fact, two kinds of int e r a c t i o n a l variables. On the one hand, there were features with purely functional dimensions which r e f l e c t the intention of the speech act -- to e l i c i t a display of knowledge, to request a c l a r i f i c a t i o n , to obtain information, to confirm the NS's own understanding, to check the NNS's understanding. On the other hand, some of the features have a formal dimension as well as one or more functional ones. They r e f l e c t how the speech act i s realized -- as an or-choice question or an expansion or a r e p e t i t i o n , each of which has a functional component as well. With th i s two-tier taxonomy, which makes no claim to being exhaustive at either l e v e l , the coding scheme proved to be f u l l y usable. Any given utterance of teacher's speech could then 35 be coded for either a formal-functional (henceforth, form) feature,"a purely functional (henceforth, function) feature, or neither or both. 2.2.6 RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT Another rater coded 10% of seven of the data sets, after a t r a i n i n g session involving about 100 utterances from each of the seven data sets. The percentage of agreement ranged from 72% to 84%, with an ove r a l l inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y of 77%. The o v e r a l l score on real disagreements after discussion was 93%. The areas of d i f f i c u l t y were inexplicitness in the instructions concerning coding of corrections, classroom management moves, and special cases of s e l f - and other-repetitions. These have been incorporated. A -test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y score was obtained to determine to what extent the coding scheme was e x p l i c i t in the researcher/coder's mind. Two hundred and f i f t y utterances from an early, middle and late transcription were recoded, and t e s t - r e t e s t scores of 87%, 90% and 84% agreement were obtained for each of the segments (overall test-retest agreement was 87%). The indications are that the coding scheme is e x p l i c i t and reproducable given an updated manual and a thorough tr a i n i n g period. 36 2.3 ANALYSIS Fixed two-factor analyses of variance were performed on frequency counts of each of the nine dependent variables. In each case the data was a l l eight sets of coded teachers' utterances for the four teachers, each at the two levels of student language proficiency. Teacher was treated as an independent variable in consideration of several factors. F i r s t , this provides a test of the assumption which seems to underlie the classroom studies of FT to date, that teachers' behaviour i s so similar that random selection i s the only necessary concession to individual differences. Other considerations were the small number of observations, only four per proficiency l e v e l , and the fact that they were not randomly chosen. The constraints of the design did not allow a random selection of teachers. Teachers were asked to be subjects as they received substitute teaching assignments, i f they were q u a l i f i e d for and available to substitute at both proficiency l e v e l s . For th i s reason, the teacher variable could not be treated as a random factor. Thus the results are not generalizable to other types of ESL teachers. Since teacher was being treated as an independent variable, and only one observation was made of each teacher at each proficiency l e v e l , i t was necessary to construct subsamples to provide a measure of within-subject v a r i a b i l i t y for the analyses of variance. This technique has 37 been used in other studies to measure within-subject r e l i a b i l i t y from time 1 to time 2 (Long 1981b, Warren-Leubecker & Bohannon III 1982). A c e l l size of three subsamples per lesson was chosen with the following in mind: i t had to be at least two, and i t seemed advisable to keep i t small to minimize interdependence between the subsamples. The subsamples were drawn from the beginning, middle, and end of each subsample, as widely separated as possible, again in order to avoid dependence between subsamples which may be caused by placing adjacent utterances in separate subsamples. The subsamples were of equal size to simplify the a n a l y t i c a l procedure. Each one contained one t h i r d of the t o t a l number of teacher utterances in the smallest data set. The corpus of 546 utterances for Teacher 1 at the advanced l e v e l was the smallest data set, and therefore each subsample contained 182 utterances. It i s , then, frequency counts of a dependent variable in each subsample over a l l eight observations which were used in the analyses of variance. Because a l l nine measures were drawn from the same observation for each teacher and l e v e l , one cannot assume independence between them, although i t has been maximized in ways just described. To compensate for t h i s , a more stringent confidence level was required: i t was set at p < .01. For purposes of the analyses of variance, the research, hypotheses outlined in Chapter 1 were replaced by n u l l 38 hypotheses. These are: 1. There w i l l be no difference in the number of or-choice questions used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 2. There w i l l be no difference in the number of expansions used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 3. There w i l l be no difference in the number of s e l f -repetitions used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 4. There w i l l be no difference in the number of other-repetitions used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 5. There w i l l be no difference in the number of display questions used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 6. There w i l l be no difference in the number of r e f e r e n t i a l questions used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 7. There w i l l be no difference in the number of comprehension checks used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 8. There w i l l be no difference in the number of confirmation checks used by the ESL teachers with beginners and advanced classes. 9. There w i l l be no difference in the number of c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests used by the ESL teachers with 39 beginners and advanced classes. Post hoc Scheffe comparisons were performed on teachers' absolute frequencies of and adjustments to the use of an interactional feature where the main eff e c t of teacher or the interaction effect between teacher and proficiency l e v e l was s i g n i f i c a n t . In the case of interaction e f f e c t s , a Tetrad was used in the numerator of the F r a t i o . This term r e f l e c t s the difference in amount of adjustment between the two proficiency levels for two teachers. 2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Possible effects of previous observations of a subject on later observations are a concern in a study involving repeated measures. In t h i s case, however, not only did s u f f i c i e n t time elapse between successive observations (in the shortest instance, one day), but the order of the observations at the two proficiency levels were counterbalanced: two teachers were observed f i r s t with advanced students, and two with beginner students. See Appendix B for further d e t a i l s . The limitations in the scope of this study are as follows. F i r s t , the number of observations i s not large: four teachers are observed in both beginner and advanced classes. This i s offset in part by consideration of the sample s i z e . There are 4368 utterances by teachers in"the corpora (182 utterances X 3 subsamples X 4 teachers X 2 40 l e v e l s ) , whereby 1606 of these are coded for a form and/or function feature. The fact remains, however, that studies with larger numbers of teachers, preferably randomly selected from a wider population, are c a l l e d for. Second, as can be seen in Appendix B, there was considerable loss of data since ease of computation forced use of equal numbers of utterances from each data set. The smallest data set (546 utterances) was the only one f u l l y u t i l i z e d . The largest number l e f t unexamined was 426 from the observation of Teacher 3 with beginner students. Third, the study i s confined to teachers (mostly substitute teachers) at one educational i n s t i t u t i o n . Fourth, class variables such as ethn i c i t y or f i r s t language background were not controlled. F i f t h , i t must be remembered that only teacher-fronted interaction was under study here, so that nothing can be said about other types of classroom interaction (e.g. one-to-one or small group work). Sixth, there is some doubt as to the homogeneity of the students' proficiency levels in the beginner and advanced classes observed here. In pa r t i c u l a r , Teacher 4's advanced class was probably lower in language proficiency than the other advanced classes. Seventh, there are many other i n t e r a c t i o n a l features which were not examined: l e f t d i s l o c a t i o n , question types, conversational frames, pauses, stress, to name a few. And, l a s t l y , modifications to speech input have not been taken into consideration. CHAPTER THREE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The top portion of Table 2 (see overleaf) contains the average number of instances of each of the nine i n t e r a c t i o n a l features across the three subsamples for each teacher at each language proficiency l e v e l . The bottom portion indicates the significance of differences from analyses of variance for the three sources of v a r i a t i o n — proficiency l e v e l , teacher, and teacher by proficiency l e v e l i n t e r a c t i o n . A l l nine analyses of variance are summarized in Appendix C. Sign i f i c a n t downward adjustment with advanced as opposed to beginner students was found in the use of s e l f -repetitions and display questions, and upward adjustment in the case of r e f e r e n t i a l questions. The teachers did not behave consistently as a group. They used s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t numbers of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s , r e f e r e n t i a l questions, comprehension and confirmation checks. There was one s i g n i f i c a n t (and two trends towards) interaction between proficiency l e v e l and teacher. Depending on which teacher is considered, r e f e r e n t i a l questions were either increased substantially or not at a l l at the advanced l e v e l , constraining the generality of the main e f f e c t . With reference to the research hypotheses, only #3 and #5 were confirmed. There were i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers of or-choice questions and c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests to permit conclusive tests of hypotheses #1 and #9. It w i l l be noted 41 Table 2. Group Means and Sources of Variation from Analyses of Variance of Use of Nine Interactional Features of Discourse with Beginner and Advanced Students Form Features Function Features 1) Or-cho1ce quest1ons 3) Self-repet1t1ons 5) D1 splay Quest Ions 7) Compre-hens1 on Checks 9) C l a r i f i -cation Requests 2) Expans1ons 4) Other-repet 111 oris 6) Referent1al Quest 1ons 8) Conf1rmat1 on Checks B B B T C 1 0. .7 1 . .0 7 .0 6 . 0 23, , 3 13. . 7 16 .7 17 . , 7 36 .0 12 , . 3 3 .0 23 .7 16 .0 8 . 7 7 . 3 6 . 0 3 . 7 0 . 7 C A 2 0. .0 0. .3 5 .3 0 .7 18, .3 .11. .0 9 .3 6. .7 55 .0 8 , .7 1 .0 2 .0 4 . 3 8 . 3 1 . 3 5 .3 0. 7 3 .0 H C 3 0. . 3 0. .7 2 . 7 7. . 7 36, .7 24 . ,3 28 .3 15. . 3 63 . 7 12. . 7 3 .7 45, . 3 3 . 3 2 . 7 8 , 0 15. , 3 o. 7 2 . 7 c R 4 0. .0 0. 0 5, .7 2 . 7 44 , .0 .20. .7 16. .0 9. ,7 64, .3 44 . ,0 2 .0 1 ,0 1 , .3 10. .0 1 , 3 0. . 7 0. 7 0 .0 Prof 1 -c1ency Level Effect n. s. .001 * * .000 ** .000 ** Teacher Effect .002 ** .015 * .014 * .001 * * .006 ** .000 ** Inter-action Teacher n.s. .016 * n.s. n.s. n.s. .002 ** .019 * n.s. n.s. X Level Beginner level class Advanced level class p< .01 p<.05 (trend) LEGEND B A 43 that a l l s i g n i f i c a n t proficiency level e f f e cts were in the dir e c t i o n predicted. 3.1 NINE INTERACTIONAL FEATURES OF DISCOURSE The four i n t e r a c t i o n a l features of form are examined, followed by the five i n t e r a c t i o n a l features of function. Accompanying each discussion i s a figure comparing the average frequencies of the par t i c u l a r discourse feature in the speech of the four ESL teachers to students at the two proficiency l e v e l s . (Note that where no bar appears, as in Figure 1 for Teacher 4, the average frequencies of occurrence were zero.) 3.1.1 OR-CHOICE QUESTIONS (FIGURE 1) There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the number of or-choice questions in the teachers' speech to beginner and advanced students. Nor were there any s i g n i f i c a n t effects of teacher or interaction. No conclusion i s possible on the basis of these s t a t i s t i c s , in any case, since so few or-choice questions were present in the data (see Table 2: the average number of or-choice questions at the advanced le v e l was 0.50 and at the beginners l e v e l , 0.25). The absence of or-choice questions in these classrooms is in di r e c t contrast to their prevalence in NS-NNS conversations outside classrooms (Hatch 1978, Long 1981b). It may be that the types of lesson observed here do not promote the use of or-choice questions, Figure 1 Or-choice Questions 1.2-i 45 although there i s no apparent common ch a r a c t e r i s t i c in the eight lessons which could account for t h i s . More l i k e l y , the classroom context i t s e l f disfavours their use. A teacher has not one but several conversational partners. With one partner, the meaning of a question which has not been understood must be negotiated or the topic dropped. An or-choice question supplies parts of possible answers which can be valuable clues to i t s meaning. In the classroom, on the other hand, a question which has not been understood by one student can often be directed unmodified to another u n t i l someone responds appropriately, providing the model for the rest of the.class. Or-choice questions may then be more useful or even necessary to sustain conversation in the f i r s t instance than in the second. 3.1.2 EXPANSIONS (FIGURE 2) The ESL teachers did not use" s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t numbers of expansions in their speech to ESL students at the two proficiency l e v e l s . Nor were there any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e cts of teacher. There was a trend towards an interaction of teacher and proficiency l e v e l , however. The interaction trend can be viewed as a dependency of the d i r e c t i o n of any tendency towards a proficiency e f f e c t on which teacher i s considered (although there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t proficiency e f f e c t ) . As i s evident in Figure 2, three teachers used somewhat similar numbers of expansions at the beginner l e v e l and decreased their use s l i g h t l y at Figure 2 Expansions 9-1 Legend ZZ2 Beginner (ZD Advanced 47 advanced, while one teacher (3) used the fewest expansions of a l l with beginners and the most at advanced. Several explanations are plausible. F i r s t , he is the only male subject. Second, use of expansions may be influenced by lesson content. A l l four teachers employed question and answer practice to some extent with beginners: Teacher 3 did this almost exclusively, with a focus on form, and a l l the questions coming from him, while Teachers 1 and 2 both focused on content (Teacher 2, for example: "What are some questions you might want to ask about registering?"), both had the students compose questions, and both used roleplay for half of the lesson. It may be that frequency of use of expansions and focus on form or content are not just correlated , but causally related, although i t i s not clear why a content as opposed to form focus would encourage use of expansions. The other two points mentioned, source of questions and use of roleplay, relate to the teacher's control of lesson content. Less tight control of content, as was the case in Teacher 1's and Teacher 2's beginner classes, may favour use of expansions. Teacher 4's beginner class was, on the other hand, very t i g h t l y content-controlled. Possibly, teaching style was a factor in her r e l a t i v e l y high use of expansions. The issue of individual style i s addressed following further discussion of lesson content. At the advanced le v e l we find s t r i k i n g differences in the types of lessons employed. Teachers 2 and 4 carried out 48 grammar and grammar exercise correction lessons in which the teacher was in control to a great extent. Teacher 3, on the other hand, chose a problem-solving exercise which was open-ended, involving the students' opinion and attitudes, and encouraging them to add o r i g i n a l material to the discussion. Confirmation checks often followed unexpected student responses, and these were often formed as expansions. For example, S: Nurse. T3: So you mean she should look for a nursing j ob. A student comment might e l i c i t a tangential question from the teacher, which, possibly because i t was unexpected, was not picked up by the students. Again, the teacher often chose to repeat the utterance with an expansion. For example, T 3 ( 1 ) : In that country, women - what's the situation in that country? T3(2): Explain i f you can. T3(3): What is the situation S: They both have a with women and men and job. working in that country, in China? T3(4): They both have a job. 49 T3(8): Whose choice i s i t ? T3(9): Whose choice is i t that they both have a job? Both utterances 3 and 9 are expansions reformulating questions which the teacher apparently suspects have not been comprehended by the students. As mentioned above, the form of the exercise encouraged the students to offer o r i g i n a l material. When a student's utterance was not understood by the rest of the class the teacher often chose expansions as a form of r e p e t i t i o n . For example, S: To review. T3: Yeah, to review her e a r l i e r - yeah, she hasn't worked for four years. The suggestion that higher numbers of expansions are related to a problem-solving lesson type i s somewhat weakened by inspection of Teacher 1's advanced lesson. She ranked next to Teacher 3 in use of thi s discourse feature, and spent one-third of her lesson on the same type of problem-solving exercise, but she used no expanded utterances in that section of the lesson. It may be that two-way as opposed to one-way information exchange i s the i n f l u e n t i a l factor in the type of lesson exhibiting r e l a t i v e l y high use of expansions. It 50 i s interesting to note that in Long's study (1981a) expansions only appeared on tasks which he reports as being dependent on a two-way information exchange. A problem-solving discussion, such as the one Teacher 1 held, could be seen as much more interactive in the sense of information exchange than the more teacher-controlled a c t i v i t i e s of Teacher 2's exercise correction, or the largely one-way communication of Teacher 4's grammar lesson at the advanced l e v e l . Teaching style could be an important factor in use of expansions. As mentioned above, the c o r r e l a t i o n of less tight control of content with higher use of expansions did not hold for Teacher 4 who use a r e l a t i v e l y high number of expansions in a t i g h t l y content-controlled beginner lesson. She seemed to be a repeater, at least of her own utterances. She did not use other-repetitions extensively, but was the highest user of s e l f - r e p e t i t ions at both l e v e l s . Expansions are also a form of r e p e t i t i o n . Any influence of lesson content may have been p a r t i a l l y o f f s e t , in her case, by a tendency to use various types of r e p e t i t i o n . A l l of these types of repetition were used by Teacher 4 overwhelmingly as strategies rather than t a c t i c s . She seemed to be avoiding conversational breakdown in several other ways as well. She treated topics b r i e f l y , made them salient in the beginner class through use of pictures, and used more comprehension checks than any of the other teachers at the advanced l e v e l . It may be that Teacher 4 is a long-term s t r a t e g i s t . The 51 importance of avoiding conversational breakdown may have outweighed the influence of control of lesson content on her use of expansions, as well as on other interactional features. Teacher 3, on the other hand, tended to be a user of t a c t i c s rather than strategies. He employed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more confirmation checks than the other three teachers (see the section dealing with confirmation checks below). A cursory look at the data reveals that he used s e l f -repetitions twice as often as t a c t i c s than as strategies with advanced students and almost always as t a c t i c s with beginners, and expansions at least as often to repair as to avoid conversational breakdown. Moreover, he was the lowest user of the strategy of checking students' comprehension. It may be that his tendency to repair rather than avoid trouble was outweighed by the influence of the lesson type at the beginner l e v e l , where he used fewest expansions, but may have strengthened the influence of the lesson type at the advanced l e v e l , leading to highest use there. There was, then, no clear-cut effect of proficiency l e v e l . Other research has reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y more use of expansions by NSs with NNS addressees both in (Early in press) and outside (Long 1981a) classrooms. It may be that the language proficiency d i f f e r e n t i a l between the two groups of students i s larger in Early's study (beginner and intermediate ESL students as compared with native speakers and f u l l y p r o f i c i e n t non-native speakers) than in mine 52 (beginner as compared with advanced ESL students), and as such allows s i g n i f i c a n t differences to emerge. In summary, i t appears that personal style in conjunction with the influence of pa r t i c u l a r lesson types are at least two of the factors which determine frequency of use of expansions. 3.1.3 SELF-REPETITIONS (FIGURE 3) Sel f - r e p e t i t i o n s were used highly s i g n i f i c a n t l y less often at the advanced l e v e l by these teachers (p^.001). The rat i o s of use with beginner to advanced students for each teacher clustered around the average 1.76. Since there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t interaction e f f e c t , t h i s result i s unmitigated by the s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the teachers in use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s (p<.002). In their comparison of FT to children and adolescent NNSs, Scarcella & Higa (1981, p.414, p.425) maintain that for c h i l d second language learners, s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s 1. serve to secure and maintain the l i s t e n e r ' s attention, 2. provide the learner with a second chance to process an utterance, and 3. serve to make the conversation l a s t . Presumably s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s a s s i s t adult L2 learners in the same way. But as students gain in competence, we would expect them to have less trouble attending to a conversation, and be able to recover meaning quicker, because they have more communicative a b i l i t y to hold up their end of the conversation. The a c q u i s i t i o n of these Average Frequency of Occurrence 54 communicative a b i l i t i e s may allow learners to deal with increasingly complex subject matter. Teachers would have less need of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s at the advanced l e v e l , as i s borne out in thi s study. In Gaies' study of teachers' speech to adult ESL learners at four levels of instruction (Gaies 1977, p.210), s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n was used most frequently at the two lower leve l s of instruction, and rarely at the advanced l e v e l . The present study widens the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of thi s finding since s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n i s more loosely defined (Gales' s e l f -repetitions were exact and immediate, whereas I define them as exact or semantic, and occurring within five conversational turns of the o r i g i n a l utterance). Some teachers seem to be high users and others low users of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s . There were twice as many s e l f -repetitions in the highest user's class as in the lowest for each l e v e l . Post hoc Scheffe comparisons confirmed that Teachers 3 and 4 grouped together as high users who used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s across proficiency l e v e l s than Teachers 1 and 2 as a group did (F = 22.08 (3, 16) p = .01). The teachers' d i f f e r i n g behaviour in thi s regard may be p a r t i a l l y an a r t i f a c t of lesson content. For most of her beginners' lesson, Teacher 4, the highest user, was teaching and reviewing vocabulary words (much of this in conjunction with question and answer p r a c t i c e ) , a c t i v i t i e s t r a d i t i o n a l l y involving r e p e t i t i o n . The differences brought out in the 55 discussion of expansions between the beginner lessons of Teachers 1 and 2, on the one hand, and that of Teacher 3, on the other, may be applicable here. Teacher 3's question and answer practice focused on form, and contained only questions posed by him. Teachers 1 and 2 focused on content, had the students compose and ask questions and used roleplay extensively. A focus on form may lead to use of s e l f -repetitions as a pedagogical device to hammer home the grammatical point. The use of roleplay and student questions by Teachers 1 and 2 seemed to lead to a lesser degree of control over content, and may explain these teachers' r e l a t i v e l y low use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s , as opposed to Teacher 3 who maintained tight content control at the beginner l e v e l . It could be that while a high degree of control over content does not favour expansions, i t does favour s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s (and other-repetitions, as w i l l be seen in the next section). This apparent contradiction may be explained as follows: repetitions deal with given content, whereas expansions, which can include new items, are more in tune with the re l a t i v e open-endedness of less t i g h t l y controlled lessons. This theory is not borne out at the advanced l e v e l , however, where control of content had the opposite effect on the use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s . Teacher 3, the highest user, probably had the least amount of control in his problem-solving discussion, and Teacher 2, the lowest user, the most in her grammar exercise correction lesson. 56 Se l f - r e p e t i t i o n s may be influenced by factors of personal s t y l e . While the clear proficiency l e v e l effect across a l l teachers suggests that adjustment behaviour is not affected by personal s t y l e , the extent to which teachers tend to be repeaters or not may be, although the present study does not reveal what those factors might be. Since s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s can be used either to avoid or repair conversational trouble, this d i s t i n c t i o n does not explain high or low usage, but i t is interesting to note that the two teachers who use s e l f - r e p e t i t ions predominantly for one purpose (Teacher 4 as a strategy, Teacher 3 as a t a c t i c ) were the highest users, while the two lowest users, Teachers 1 and 2, seemed to employ them as both avoidance and repair devices. Whatever the explanation for teacher v a r i a b i l i t y , the strong proficiency l e v e l e f f e c t remains and suggests that the teachers were gearing their speech to the students' pro f i c i e n c y l e v e l , with respect to use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s . In the present study, s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s are second only to display questions in frequency of use at the beginners l e v e l , and to display and r e f e r e n t i a l questions at the advanced l e v e l . Other studies corroborate t h i s finding as well as that of a proficiency l e v e l e f f e c t . S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s are pervasive in NS-NNS speech outside classrooms (Long 1981a, Freed 1981, Hatch, Shapira & Gough 1975). More than 20% of the ESL teachers' speech to beginning foreign students were s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s in Gaies' study (1977). Early 57 (in press) found s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s in ESL teachers' speech than regular teachers' speech. Gaies (1977) and Chaudron (1979) both report t h i s feature to be more frequent in the classroom at lower levels of proficiency. 3.1.4 OTHER-REPETITIONS (FIGURE 4) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the use of other-repetitions with advanced and beginner l e v e l students, nor was there a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between teacher and proficiency l e v e l . However, there was a trend towards a teacher e f f e c t . It i s interesting to note that the adjustments made to s e l f - and other-repetitions as a result of l e v e l were not s i m i l a r . Use of the former decreases as l e v e l increases, while use of the l a t t e r does not. Possibly the explanation l i e s in the fact that s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s are primarily pedagogical, whereas other-repetitions serve the additional a f f e c t i v e purpose of affirmation of the student's response from language and/or content points of view. This kind of support probably plays an important role in any kind of e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting, regardless of language proficiency. There i s a trend towards a teacher ef f e c t as shown by Teacher 3's greater use of other-repetitions at the beginner l e v e l . The differences may be at least partly explained as an a r t i f a c t of lesson content following the same argument as used for s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s . Teacher 3 conducted a question Figure 4 Other-Repetitions 35-1 3 0 -59 and answer grammar practice focused on form throughout the lesson, whereas Teachers 1 and 2 included a considerable amount of roleplay, and focused on content. Teacher 3's formal grammar-oriented d r i l l may have been p a r t i c u l a r l y suited to use of other-repetitions for pedagogical purposes. That i s , a form focus, as in Teacher 3's beginner class, may promote use of other-repetitions as a way of emphasizing the grammatical point. This observation runs p a r a l l e l to that in the discussion of use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s . As well, as suggested there, use of roleplay and student questions seemed to lead to a lesser degree of control over content, and may have contributed to the r e l a t i v e l y low use of other-repetitions in these lessons (Teachers 1 and 2 at the beginner l e v e l ) . The differences, on the other hand, may be due d i f f e r i n g perceptions on the part of the teachers as to the importance of affirmation of a student's response by modeling i t back to him and his fellow students. At the advanced l e v e l , Teachers 3 and 1, who both u t i l i z e a problem-solving exercise (Teacher 1 to a lesser extent), f a l l together as the top users of other-repetitions, while Teachers 4 and 2, who both conduct grammar and exercise correction lessons, are on the low end. Perhaps the problem-solving type of exercise tends to e l i c i t more other-repetitions because personal affirmation l i e s -closer to hand when dealing with a student's own experience and opinions. 6 0 There i s an apparent contradiction in using more control of content as ah argument for higher use of other-repetitions with beginners, and less control of content as an argument for higher use of other-repetitions with advanced students. The contradiction f a l l s away, however, i f the differences observed are due to varying use of other-repetitions for pedagogical purposes in the f i r s t case, and affirmative purposes in the second, as has been suggested. The lack of a s i g n i f i c a n t proficiency l e v e l effect suggests that use of other-repetitions i s not influenced by language proficiency l e v e l in the classroom. Other studies do, however, report s i g n i f i c a n t l y more other-repetitions in FT in (Early in press) and out of classrooms (Long 1981a), as compared to NS-NS speech. 3.1.5 DISPLAY QUESTIONS (FIGURE 5) The ESL teachers used highly s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer display questions with advanced than with beginner level students (p<.000). There was also a trend towards an effect of teacher, but no interaction e f f e c t between teacher and proficiency l e v e l . The downward adjustment in use of display questions at the advanced le v e l i s a pedagogically important finding in my view. It has been noted that display questions do not in general i n v i t e learners to respond at length and even less to i n i t i a t e new topics and thus sustain interaction (Gaies 1983, p.209). In other words, they do l i t t l e to promote Figure 5 Display Questions 70-. 62 communicative use of language. Furthermore, we know from comparison of in and out of classroom FT (Long & Sato 1983, Long 1983c) that, in sharp contrast to teachers' FT, NSs speaking to NNSs outside classrooms employ very few display questions. If the goal of the language classroom i s to prepare learners l i n g u i s t i c a l l y for the real, communicative world, then i t would be comforting to know that ESL teaching is on the right track in cutting down on display questions as the students' proficiency increases. This result supports that contention, with the q u a l i f i c a t i o n that half of the teachers did not replace the display questions with r e f e r e n t i a l questions (see the discussion on r e f e r e n t i a l questions). It i s unlikely that display questions are used less often with advanced students with any conscious motive of preparing students for the real world. More probably the reasons can be found in the content of language lessons at diffe r e n t l e v e l s of proficiency. Display questions are useful for vocabulary teaching, which is often a large part of lower l e v e l lessons (e.g., Teacher 4's beginner lesson in this study). They are probably less useful for the teaching of discourse negotiation, presumably a larger part of higher level lessons. An examination of the lessons c l e a r l y reveals that Teacher 3's downward adjustment in display questions was an a r t i f a c t of lesson content. They were, not unexpectedly, pervasive in his question and answer grammar practice of 63 verb tenses and short answers to yes/no questions, and scarce in his- problem-solving lesson. While Teacher 1 and Teacher 3 used display questions about equally frequently at the advanced l e v e l , the fact that Teacher 1 adjusted less d r a s t i c a l l y than Teacher 3 corresponds to her use of a problem-solving discussion, in which only three display questions were employed, and which only accounted for one-t h i r d of her advanced lesson. There was a trend towards inconsistency in the teachers' behaviour. Teachers 3 and 2 seemed to reduce display questions s i m i l a r l y and in higher proportions from beginner to advanced than did Teachers 4 and 1. These l a s t two reduced display questions in similar proportion, but used widely d i f f e r e n t amounts. The explanation for the grouping of Teachers 3 and 2 as compared to 4 and 1 does not seem to l i e in lesson content differences. On the other hand, one could attribute Teacher 4's more conservative adjustment in part to her interest in avoiding conversational breakdown, and Teacher 3's more pronounced reduction in part to his lack of avoidance behaviour. Display questions, especially when employed in d r i l l s and exercise correction, would seem to be less l i k e l y to lead to breakdown than would r e f e r e n t i a l questions or statements. The absolute numbers of display questions used by the teachers are somewhat d i f f e r e n t . At the advanced l e v e l , Teacher 4's'greater use can again be explained by her tendency to avoid conversational breakdown. Display 64 questions may be perceived as being less risky in that regard* than r e f e r e n t i a l questions. At the beginner l e v e l , however, neither lesson content nor strategy/tactic preferences offer an explanation for the d i f f e r i n g behaviour. Perhaps i t l i e s in differences in training or personal preferences or in reactions to class composition variables. 3.1.6 REFERENTIAL QUESTIONS (FIGURE 6) Sig n i f i c a n t effects of both proficiency l e v e l and teacher were evident: in general these teachers used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e f e r e n t i a l questions with advanced than with beginning students (p<.000), and absolute amounts d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y among the teachers as well (p^.001). Moreover,there was a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between teacher and proficiency level (p<.002). The interaction e f f e c t constrains the generality of the proficiency effect and r e f l e c t s the fact that certain teachers boost r e f e r e n t i a l questions with advanced students, and others do not. Teacher 3 i s c l e a r l y one of the boosters. Post hoc Scheffe comparisons confirmed and expanded on what Figure 6 suggests. The adjustment in numbers of r e f e r e n t i a l questions made by Teacher 3 between the levels was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the corresponding adjustment by Teacher 2 or Teacher 4 (compared to T2: F = 65.92 (7, 16) p_ = .01). Teachers 3 and 1 combined adjusted in s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amounts than Teachers 2 Average Frequency of Occurrence O CM O _L_ O Cn O _J 1 Q O :r CD CD CD D O CD CO o* D CO .1 > CO CD a <» CQ < <§. CD 3 3 CD " CL =5 CL 99 66 and 4 combined (F = 77.43 (7, 16) p_ = .01). But i t was Teacher 3 who behaved most d i f f e r e n t l y from a l l the rest. He adjusted s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than Teachers 1, 2 and 4 combined, but not than Teacher 1 alone (F = 72.31 (7, 16) 2 = .01; F = 17.57 (7, 16) p_ = .01). There are several possible explanations for Teacher 3's widely divergent behaviour. The use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions may be to some extent an attribute of personal teaching s t y l e . For instance, Teacher 3, who used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e f e r e n t i a l questions then Teacher 4 at the advanced l e v e l , has been shown to be less interested in avoiding conversational trouble than Teacher 4. Teachers who do not tend to avoid breakdowns but to repair them instead, may be more prone to using r e f e r e n t i a l questions, which can involve the students in trying to express thoughts and emotions never before attempted in English. However, there is also a case for considering his r e l a t i v e l y heavy use of this discourse feature with the advanced class as an a r t i f a c t of the type of exercise or methodology employed. A problem-solving exercise was presented, and the students asked to provide possible solutions, discuss the pros and cons of each, and decide i n d i v i d u a l l y on the best solution - a l l in open discussion led by the teacher. The teacher had ostensible, but l i t t l e d i r e c t control of content, often pursuing points of interest brought up by the students. This accounts at least p a r t i a l l y for the prevalence of r e f e r e n t i a l questions. But more 67 s p e c i f i c a l l y , the very nature of this a c t i v i t y necessitated the use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions of the attitude/opinion type. For example, T3: Do you think that i t would work trying to bring up two kids and working s h i f t work . . . ? And since the problem dealt with family organization, r e f e r e n t i a l questions of the type T3: Does th i s kind of thing happen in your native country? as well as follow-up questions were common. Teachers 2 and 4, who used v i r t u a l l y no r e f e r e n t i a l questions at either l e v e l , both gave grammar and grammar exercise correction lessons at the advanced l e v e l . It i s not surprising that few r e f e r e n t i a l questions turned up in these highly content-controlled and impersonal types of lessons. More evidence that use of a problem-solving method of discussion i s related to high use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions is provided by Teacher 1's behaviour. Teacher 1 spent one-t h i r d of her lesson at the advanced l e v e l on the same type of problem-solving exercise as Teacher 3 had used. In the las t two-thirds of this section of the lesson over 25% of a l l teacher utterances were r e f e r e n t i a l questions, and these accounted for almost three-quarters of a l l her r e f e r e n t i a l 68 questions. It seems that a problem-solving lesson on a universal topic i s a good vehicle for tapping into student experience and opinion, and, i f exploited in such a fashion, i t w i l l be r i c h in r e f e r e n t i a l questions on the part of the teacher. In comparing the results for display and r e f e r e n t i a l questions one might ask what Teachers 2 and 4 replaced display questions with at the advanced l e v e l , since they did not increase use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions. The students may have done more of the talking, or the teacher may have used more statements at the advanced than at the beginner l e v e l . Insofar as teachers are not prone to use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions or to choosing lesson a c t i v i t i e s which promote them, there i s some j u s t i f i c a t i o n for extending Long's c r i t i c i s m of the second language classroom as a place which "offers very l i t t l e opportunity to the learner to communicate in the target language or to hear i t used for communicative purposes by others" (Long 1983c, p.218) to the advanced l e v e l based on these findings. 3.1.7 COMPREHENSION CHECKS (FIGURE 7) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the number of comprehension checks used by the teachers at the two lev e l s of proficiency. The teachers did use them in s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amounts at each proficiency l e v e l , however, and there was a trend towards an interaction between teacher and proficiency l e v e l . Figure 7 Comprehension Checks 18-, 70 Proficiency level does not appear to influence numbers of comprehension checks, possibly because as the students progress the material becomes correspondingly more complex. On the other hand, i t may be that the range between beginner and advanced students was just not broad enough for the differences to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Early (in press) reports s i g n i f i c a n t l y more comprehension checks in ESL classes than in regular classes. If one views her work as a comparison between levels as well, with the bottom l e v e l being a mixture of beginner and intermediate students and the upper one being that much more advanced ( i . e . , p r o f i c i e n t non-native or native) than my advanced ESL students, i t may be that a wider range between the proficiency l e v e l s accounts for her capturing a s i g n i f i c a n t difference. The numbers of comprehension checks employed by these teachers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Post hoc Scheffe comparisons revealed that Teacher 1 used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more comprehension checks than Teachers 2, 3 and 4 combined (F = 18.21 (3, 16) p_ = .01). It must be noted, however, that the generality of this effect i s limited by the interaction trend, as discussed below. The notion of strategies and t a c t i c s as a matter of personal style may help explain why the teachers behave so d i f f e r e n t l y , at least at the beginner l e v e l . Use of comprehension checks has been viewed as a long-term strategy to prevent communication breakdown (Long 1983a). Teacher 3 rarely employed th i s discourse feature at either l e v e l , and 71 he tended to use short-term t a c t i c s rather than long-term strategies. As pointed out above, presumably he would react in the short term to repair communication breakdown with such t a c t i c s as s e l f - and other-repetitions, confirmation checks, and c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests. In fact, he was the highest user of confirmation checks. He was also the highest user of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s which he used twice as often as t a c t i c s than as strategies with advanced students, and overwhelmingly as t a c t i c s with beginner students. In addition, he was the highest user of other-repetitions, but he did not use them as t a c t i c s . As far as c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests are concerned, there was no teacher e f f e c t , making a behaviour comparison i n v a l i d for t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l feature. A paucity in comprehension checks could also be explained by a teacher's lack of awareness of c u l t u r a l differences in how or i f students register comprehension or lack of i t either l i n g u i s t i c a l l y or n o n l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . The present study did not control for awareness of c u l t u r a l differences, but, based on the observations, i t does not seem l i k e l y that this explanation applied to the teachers studied. Lesson methodology may shed l i g h t on why teachers d i f f e r . Teacher 3 used fewer comprehension checks at the advanced l e v e l r e l a t i v e to the other teachers. This seems l o g i c a l in l i g h t of the fact that the information flow in his problem-solving exercise was largely from student to 7 2 teacher, and Long (1983c, p.219) has argued that comprehension checks w i l l be less frequent i f th i s i s so. He did not check the classmates' comprehension of a student's utterance either, but i t could be that teachers are less l i k e l y to check comprehension when in the role of f a c i l i t a t o r in a free-flowing conversation than they are in the role of teacher, as imparter of knowledge. There was a trend towards an interaction between teacher and proficiency l e v e l . The effect of proficiency l e v e l on the use of comprehension checks depends to a certain extent on which teacher i s being considered. Teachers 2 and 4 increased numbers of comprehension checks at the advanced l e v e l somewhat, while Teacher 1 decreased usage, and Teacher 3's use of comprehension checks was not affected. Higher numbers of comprehension checks are l i k e l y to occur when information is flowing primarily from teacher to student (Long 1983c). Teacher 1, who decreased usage with advanced as compared to beginner students, held a beginner lesson with the t y p i c a l teacher to student information flow. The flow was in the opposite di r e c t i o n in the problem-solving section of her advanced lesson, where in one-third of the lesson she used less than o n e - f i f t h of her t o t a l number of comprehension checks, providing an explanation for her decreased usage at the advanced l e v e l . Teacher 4's beginner lesson was very t i g h t l y controlled with v i s u a l aids used throughout. Perhaps the use of media obviated the need for comprehension checks, whereas her advanced class was 73 less t i g h t l y controlled, and so more comprehension checks were applicable there. This might explain why she increased usage at the advanced l e v e l . Teacher 2's upward adjustment may be explained by the r e l a t i v e complexity of her advanced lesson, a sentence-combining exercise, which was discussed in grammatical terms such as i n f i n i t i v e phrase and anticipatory ' i t ' . Teacher 3's lack of adjustment cannot be explained by information flow since i t was c l e a r l y flowing from teacher to student at the beginner l e v e l and in the opposite direction at the advanced l e v e l . In any case, he also used comprehension checks rarely, and, as has been mentioned, he was probably a short-term t a c t i c s user and so tended not to check comprehension. It should be noted that a r e l a t i v e l y high or low number of comprehension checks at any l e v e l for a par t i c u l a r teacher may simply be determined by lesson content or methodology or other factors such as teaching style or the teacher's awareness of or reaction to c u l t u r a l differences. There may be no adjustment to proficiency l e v e l as a cause-effect relationship for any of them. Or, conversely, the teachers may, in fact, be adjusting to the proficiency l e v e l of t h e i r students, but in individual ways, so that some teachers increase, some decrease usage from beginner to advanced classes. Aspects of the lesson and teacher behaviour were not controlled in the study, so that what we are l e f t with are not explanations, but valuable clues as to the sources of •74 v a r i a t i o n . Further studies are required which e x p l i c i t l y address these issues. High use of comprehension checks seems to be a feature of FT, as shown by t h e i r prevalence in ESL as compared to regular teachers' speech (Early in press), and in NS-NNS as compared to NS-NS conversations outside classrooms (Long 1981a). But i t i s also an aspect of teacher talk, as shown by the greater numbers of them found in ESL teachers' speech as compared to NSs' speech in NS-NNS conversations (Long 1983c). 3.1.8 CONFIRMATION CHECKS (FIGURE 8) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the frequencies of confirmation checks used at the two l e v e l s . The teachers did behave s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t l y in the numbers of confirmation checks employed at a proficiency l e v e l , and thi s e f f e c t was general, i . e . , i t was not constrained by an interaction between teacher and proficiency l e v e l . Long (1983c) found fewer confirmation checks used by NSs in ESL classrooms than outside them, and Early (in press) did not find s u f f i c i e n t numbers of confirmation checks to report any difference between ESL and regular teachers' speech. She suggests that teachers have less use for them because they avoid conversational breakdowns (which confirmation checks are often employed to repair) more so than NSs outside classrooms. They were not p a r t i c u l a r l y p l e n t i f u l in this study either. They ranked sixth out of the Average Frequency of Occurrence > CD CD f t * o a CL a i o. 9Z. 76 nine discourse features in frequency of use at both proficiency l e v e l s . The four teachers do, however, make use of t h i s discourse feature in s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amounts. The number of confirmation checks used for any given lesson may depend on the type of a c t i v i t y chosen. But the deciding factor may be the direction of information flow as determined by the type of a c t i v i t y . If i t i s from student to teacher, confirmation checks w i l l be employed more often (Long 1983c). This was borne out by Teacher 3, who used the most confirmation checks at the advanced le v e l in a problem-solving lesson in which information was primarily flowing from student to teacher. They often followed unexpected student responses. The other teachers, on the other hand, used s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer confirmation checks at that l e v e l , according to a Scheffe post-hoc comparison test comparing numbers of confirmation checks used by Teacher 3 to the mean of the numbers of confirmation checks used by Teachers 1, 2 and 4 at the advanced l e v e l (F = 23.97 (3, 16) p_ = .01). Notably, two out of the three lessons were e n t i r e l y grammar discussion-based, while the t h i r d one contained both highly controlled exercises and open-ended problem-solving discussion. Information flow is probably not weighted either way in grammar exercise lessons. On the other hand, lesson content and di r e c t i o n of information flow does not explain why Teacher 3 and Teacher 1 with beginners used the next highest number of confirmation checks. Teacher 3's lesson 77 was purely grammar practice d r i l l s in which the flow was d e f i n i t e l y not from student to teacher. Perhaps individual style w i l l provide an explanation here. Confirmation checks are t a c t i c s used to repair breakdown. That Teacher 3 was the highest user at both leve l s is consistent with his high use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s and expansions as t a c t i c s , and his low use of comprehension checks. In short, he appeared to react to conversation breakdown in the short-term rather than to avoid i t . It has been argued that Teacher 4 i s a s t r a t e g i s t , and, in fact, she i s the lowest user of the t a c t i c of confirmation checks at both l e v e l s . It may be that while a change in the di r e c t i o n of information flow towards student to teacher, as was true for Teacher 3 with advanced students, tends to increase the frequency of confirmation checks, the r i s i n g proficiency l e v e l i t s e l f acts to decrease numbers of confirmation checks (because the better the speaker the more l i k e l y he is to produce readily comprehensible utterances). The influence of the former tendency may peak somewhere between beginners and advanced, and be offset by the l a t t e r , bringing a high number of confirmation checks back down to the observed l e v e l with advanced students (or there may be a trough i f the l a t t e r tendency predominates at lower levels and i s only at higher levels offset by a student to teacher information flow). 78 3.1.9 C L A R I F I C A T I O N REQUESTS (FIGURE 9) Not e v e n a t r e n d t o w a r d s a t e a c h e r o r p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l o r i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t i n t h e f o u r ESL t e a c h e r s ' u s e o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s . I n any c a s e , t h e r e a r e so few of them i n t h e d a t a t h a t no c o n c l u s i o n i s p o s s i b l e . I t may be t h a t t e a c h e r s t e n d t o m a i n t a i n s u c h t i g h t c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r l e s s o n s t h a t s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s c a n be a n t i c i p a t e d , m a k i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s u n n e c e s s a r y , a n d where t h e y c a n n o t ( T e a c h e r 3 a t a d v a n c e d , f o r i n s t a n c e ) , i t may be t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s h a v e t h e f a c i l i t y t o a t l e a s t h a z a r d a g u e s s w i t h a c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k . O t h e r c l a s s r o o m s t u d i e s a l s o r e p o r t r e l a t i v e l y few c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s ( L o n g 1 9 8 3 c , E a r l y i n p r e s s ) . FT o u t s i d e c l a s s r o o m s d o e s seem t o c o n t a i n g r e a t e r numbers o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s ( L o n g 1 9 8 1 a ) : E a r l y s u g g e s t s t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n a l b r e a k d o w n s a r e more l i k e l y t o o c c u r o u t s i d e t h e c l a s s r o o m ( w h ere t h e r e i s n o t a s much work b e i n g done t o a v o i d t h e m ) , a n d r e p a i r i s o f t e n s o u g h t t h r o u g h a r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . 3.2 SUMMARY T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l f o r t h r e e d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s - s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s , d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s . The s u g g e s t i o n i s t h a t i n c r e a s i n g c o m m u n i c a t i v e a b i l i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e s t u d e n t a n d / o r t y p e s o f l e s s o n c h o s e n by t h e t e a c h e r l e d t o t h i s r e s u l t . I n t h e c a s e o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between t e a c h e r a n d p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l c o n s t r a i n s Figure 9 Clarification Requests 80 the g e n e r a l i t y of the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l e f f e c t . There were t r e n d s towards an i n t e r a c t i o n between t e a c h e r and p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l f o r e x p a n s i o n s and comprehension ch e c k s . E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r a l l t h r e e i n t e r a c t i o n s seem t o i n v o l v e p r i m a r i l y v a r i a t i o n s i n l e s s o n c o n t e n t which a f f e c t such v a r i a b l e s as amount of t e a c h e r c o n t r o l over c o n t e n t or type of i n f o r m a t i o n exchange (two-way or one-way), and t e a c h i n g s t y l e as a f f e c t e d by the tendency t o use s t r a t e g i e s t o a v o i d or t a c t i c s t o r e p a i r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l breakdown. There was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n a t the l e v e l of t e a c h e r . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found among the t e a c h e r s i n t h e i r use of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s , r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , comprehension checks and c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k s . O t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s and d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s showed t r e n d s towards a t e a c h e r e f f e c t . I n s p e c t i o n of the c o r p o r a s u g g e s t s t h a t l e s s o n c o n t e n t c h o i c e s which a f f e c t d i r e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w , amount of t e a c h e r c o n t r o l over c o n t e n t , amount of emphasis on form v e r s u s meaning, and l i n g u i s t i c c o m p l e x i t y of the m a t e r i a l a r e d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r s i n the amount of each d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e used. T e a c h i n g s t y l e can a l s o be c r u c i a l . Whether t e a c h e r s a r e aware of uses of c e r t a i n d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s or of c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l a s s c o m p o s i t i o n , and, most i m p o r t a n t l y , whether i n t h e i r language c l a s s r o o m c o n v e r s a t i o n a l b e h a v i o u r they t e n d t o p l a n f o r the l o n g term or r e a c t i n the s h o r t term, are p o t e n t i a l l y r e l e v a n t a s p e c t s . C H A P T E R F O U R C O N C L U S I O N S A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S The present study suggests that ESL teachers' discourse varies as a function of students' language competence for some interactional features: namely, s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s , and display questions. Both of these in t e r a c t i o n a l features are employed s i g n i f i c a n t l y less often by the teachers with advanced than beginner students. On the basis of t h i s study, i t cannot be concluded that the other features do not also change s i g n i f i c a n t l y with proficiency l e v e l for these teachers. It may be that larger corpora would uncover differences. On the other hand, i t does reveal how widely teachers can vary in their behaviour. The absolute frequencies of discourse features d i f f e r e d among the teachers in many cases, and the amount of adjustment was highly variable. Moreover, the lack of a general e f f e c t of proficiency level on most measures of discourse adjustment seemed to be due not to an absence of adjustment, but to the fact that teachers modified in opposite d i r e c t i o n s on several measures. This was true for expansions, other-repetitions, comprehension checks, and c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests. It remains for further study to determine whether these individual differences in di r e c t i o n or amount of adjustment are s i g n i f i c a n t . It w i l l be recalled from the discussion in Chapter 2 that, since the teacher variable was fixed and not random, the results of the study are, s t r i c t l y speaking, not 81 82 generalizable to other types of ESL teachers. With that in mind, I would l i k e to make some cautious suggestions about how teachers in general might behave based on the findings. Long and Sato (1983) found that ESL teachers of beginners asked more display questions and fewer r e f e r e n t i a l questions than NSs in conversation with NNSs outside classrooms. The present finding i s that ESL teachers of beginner students asked more display questions and fewer r e f e r e n t i a l questions than ESL teachers of advanced students. The r a t i o of display to r e f e r e n t i a l questions used by Long and Sato's lower l e v e l ESL teachers was 4-to 1. It was even more pronounced for lower l e v e l teachers in the present study: display questions were 25 times as numerous as r e f e r e n t i a l questions. The same teachers, however, employed on the average about equal numbers of display and r e f e r e n t i a l questions with advanced students. It seems that the d i s p a r i t y in d i s t r i b u t i o n of display and r e f e r e n t i a l questions in and out of classrooms i s not as pronounced for ESL teachers' speech to students of advanced ESL proficiency (although t h i s result should be checked against NS speech to advanced NNSs outside the classroom). This finding would tend to mitigate Long and Sato's conclusion that "NS - NNS conversation during SL instruction i s a greatly distorted version of i t s equivalent in the real world" (Long & Sato 1983, p.284), at least for SL instruction at advanced l e v e l s . Teachers may create a highly a r t i f i c i a l language environment in lower l e v e l classrooms, but the findings in 83 t h i s study suggest t h a t they are moving i n the d i r e c t i o n of c l o s i n g the gap t o more communicative use of language as the s t u d e n t s ' p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n c r e a s e s , as f a r as the use of d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s i s concerned. I t must be n o t e d , however, t h a t o n l y h a l f of the t e a c h e r s were c r e a t i n g a more communicative environment by i n c r e a s i n g r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s a t the advanced l e v e l . The p r e s e n t study adds t o our knowledge of f o r e i g n e r t a l k i n the f o l l o w i n g ways. F i r s t , i t f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e s FT i n the c l a s s r o o m : i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of d i s c o u r s e a r e examined i n the l i g h t of d i f f e r i n g language p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s of the s t u d e n t s . I t was found t h a t , w h i l e numbers of some i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s d i d change i n the d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d between the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s , t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n numbers of most i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s , c o n t r a r y t o the h y p otheses. T h i s study a l l o w e d v a r i a t i o n a t the l e v e l of t e a c h e r t o emerge as a d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r . C o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n was d i s c o v e r e d . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s are c a l l e d f o r t o i s o l a t e and examine t o what e x t e n t l e s s o n c h o i c e s or t e a c h i n g s t y l e s , as two p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s of v a r i a t i o n , a f f e c t t e a c h e r s ' use of i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of d i s c o u r s e w i t h s t u d e n t s of v a r y i n g ESL p r o f i c i e n c y . C o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s of t e a c h e r s ' use of each i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e c o u l d be u s e f u l . I f t e a c h e r s a r e found t o be h i g h or low u s e r s of i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s i n g e n e r a l r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r t e a c h e r s , then the p i c t u r e p o r t r a y e d here of p e r v a s i v e i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n would be 8 4 mitigated somewhat. The second benefit from t h i s study is that, although i t is only capable of assessing an association between each of the discourse features and student proficiency l e v e l , i t s findings suggest that language proficiency level would be a good candidate for a study on triggers of FT. Though lesson content was not controlled in t h i s study, i t has emerged in the discussion as an additional and powerful factor in determining discourse usage. This implication runs p a r a l l e l to Long's finding that task type (two-way or one-way information flow) influences use of interactional features by NSs in conversation with NNSs outside classrooms (Long 1981a). In addressing teacher v a r i a b i l i t y , the study has also uncovered sources of var i a t i o n due to teaching s t y l e : in p a r t i c u l a r , whether a teacher tends to avoid or repair conversational breakdown. It appears that FT is influenced by a combination of many factors — personal style in conjunction with lesson content, methodology, proficiency l e v e l , ethnic and l i n g u i s t i c background of the students, and probably others as well. Research has just begun on this aspect of SLA: i t has been suggested that age triggers s i m p l i f i c a t i o n more than l i n g u i s t i c competence in a study of NS speech to NNS children and adolescents (Scarcella & Higa 1981), that i t i s comprehensibility of NNS speech as determined by grammatically and pronunciation as well as other l i n g u i s t i c and s o c i a l factors that triggers FT (Varonis & Gass 1982), 85 and that comprehension by the NNS i s one of a combination of determining factors (Long 1983b). More research is c a l l e d for, both into these and other possible t r i g g e r s of FT and into describing the ways in which the tri g g e r s affect FT usage in the classroom and other contexts, for various speech events, tasks and conversational participants. In the classroom, i t w i l l be important to investigate how e t h n i c i t y and f i r s t and/or other language backgrounds a f f e c t FT usage. For instance, the fact that most of the students (75%) who took part in this study were Chinese, Japanese or Vietnamese L1 speakers may account in part for some of the differences in the results among t h i s and other studies. Work in the areas of description and triggers of FT continues as some researchers begin to explore the question of whether or which modifications do, in fact, promote second language ac q u i s i t i o n . Hamayan and Tucker (1980) discovered that modifications in classroom input affected French second language learners' production of certain syntactic structures at the t h i r d and f i f t h grade l e v e l s . Brock (1984) investigated e f f e c t s of r e f e r e n t i a l and display questions on learners' target language production. Students responded with longer, more complex utterances, and with more utterances per turn to r e f e r e n t i a l than to display questions. Long (1983b) tested a preliminary step in which i t i s hypothesized that modifications lead to comprehensible input and interaction by comparing intermediate students' 86 comprehension of a FT and a NS version of a l e c t u r e t t e . He suggests that one or more speech adjustments do f a c i l i t a t e NNS comprehension. When answers begin to emerge on which features do or do not promote SLA, and these are mapped onto which features are used by which teachers in which ways, there w i l l be implications for teacher t r a i n i n g . Presumably, for s p e c i f i c settings, tasks and participants, there w i l l be a range of FT behaviours which could be shown to be b e n e f i c i a l to the learner (or, more l i k e l y , certain ranges of behaviours w i l l prove b e n e f i c i a l to certain types of learners). Long and several colleagues have begun research in t h i s area (Long, Brock, Crookes, Deicke, Potter & Zhang 1984). Students' comprehension of s p e c i a l l y constructed and similar lessons was tested before and after their teachers had a 15 minute tr a i n i n g session on the purpose and use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions. It was found that even a small amount of t r a i n i n g affected their behaviour (use of r e f e r e n t i a l questions did increase), and that the students' mastery of lesson content was higher. Training would seem to be f r u i t f u l and indications are that experience does not influence frequency of use of discourse features in any thorough-going way (Pica & Long 1982). Clearly, however, before the implications for teacher t r a i n i n g can be pursued, there is much work to be done in answering the question of whether and which discourse modifications are b e n e f i c i a l to the learner. 8 7 The present study adds to our knowledge of NS-NNS r e g i s t e r s f o r the s e t t i n g of the classroom, the r o l e s of teacher and student, and the task of formal t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d d i s c u s s i o n . I t suggests, f i r s t of a l l , that we are d e a l i n g with at l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t types of i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s - those with p u r e l y f u n c t i o n a l dimensions and those with a formal dimension as w e l l . I t a l s o suggests that some i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s are r a r e l y used i n the classroom ( or-cho i c e q u e s t i o n s and c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s ) , some are not used i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amounts at the beginner and advanced p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s (expansions, o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s , comprehension and c o n f i r m a t i o n checks) and some are h e a v i l y used f e a t u r e s which are employed i n h i g h l y d i f f e r e n t amounts with beginner and advanced students ( s e l f - r e p e t i t ions, d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , and, with q u a l i f i c a t i o n , r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s ) . The f a c t t h a t s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s , d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s and r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s are used in s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amounts at the two l e v e l s strengthens the case f o r c o n s i d e r i n g them FT f e a t u r e s . While the extent of i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n among teachers i s g r e a t , one might t e n t a t i v e l y conclude that ESL teachers do i n c r e a s e communicative use of language as t h e i r students near NS f l u e n c y . Even more t e n t a t i v e l y , one might suspect that t e a c h e r s , at l e a s t on some measures, approach NS-NS teacher t a l k r e g i s t e r as the students near NS p r o f i c i e n c y . T h i s r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r study with NS-NS b a s e l i n e data i n the classroom, along with the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l comparison. 88 In conclusion, i t remains to point out that while i t seems to be generally agreed that the learner's l i n g u i s t i c environment i s an important aspect of the acquisition process, teachers are not on the whole aware of the l i n g u i s t i c adjustments they make with their foreign students, nor are input and interactional adjustments and which types of lessons af f e c t them part of teacher t r a i n i n g c u r r i c u l a . I would suggest that they should be, on both counts. The extent of individual v a r i a b i l i t y in discourse usage discovered in the present study suggests that some teachers may have the i n t u i t i v e a b i l i t y to fine tune their lesson a c t i v i t i e s to promote discourse patterns to suit the language learners' needs. Others of us may need to be taught how to do that optimally. REFERENCE NOTES 1. Since the writing of t h i s thesis, Early's doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n has been completed: Early, M. 1985. Input and interaction in the content classroom: foreigner talk and teacher talk in classroom discourse. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . 89 REFERENCES Brock, C.A. 1984. The e f f e c t s of r e f e r e n t i a l questions on ESL classroom discourse. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu. Chaudron, C. 1979, March. Complexity of teacher speech and vocabulary explanation/elaboration. Paper presented at the 13th Annual TESOL Convention, Boston, Mass. Early, M. In press. L i n g u i s t i c input and interaction in the content classroom. In R.R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Ferguson, C.A. 1971. Absence of copula and the notion of s i m p l i c i t y . In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and C r e o l i z a t i o n of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, C.A. 1975. Towards a characterization of English foreigner t a l k . Anthropological L i n g u i s t i c s , 17, 1-14. Freed,B. 1981. Foreigner talk , baby talk, native ta l k . International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 19-39. Gaies,S.J. 1977. The nature of l i n g u i s t i c input in formal second language learning: l i n g u i s t i c and communicative strategies in ESL teachers' classroom language. In H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio, & R.H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77. Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice. Washington, D.C: TESOL. Gaies, S.J. 1982. Native speaker - nonnative speaker interaction among academic peers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(1), 74-82. Gaies, S.J. 1983. The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 205-217. Hamayan, E.V. & Tucker, G.R. 1980. Language input in the b i l i n g u a l classroom and i t s relationship to second language achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 453-468. Hatch, E.M. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In E.M. Hatch (Ed.), Second Language Acq u i s i t i o n : A Book of Readings. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 90 91 Hatch, E.M. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Hatch,E., Shapira, R. & Gough, J. 1978. "Foreigner t a l k " discourse. International Review of Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 39-40, 39-60. Henzl,V. 1973. L i n g u i s t i c register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning, 23(2), 207-222. Henzl,V. 1979. Foreigner talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 17(2), 159-167. Long,M.H. 1981a. Input, interaction and second-language acq u i s i t i o n . In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Long,M.H. 1981b. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning, 31(1), 135-157. Long, M.H. 1983a. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied L i n g u i s t i c s , 4(2), 126-141. Long, M.H. 1983b. L i n g u i s t i c and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-249. Long, M.H. 1983c. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M.A. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL '82. P a c i f i c Perspectives on Second Language Learning and Teaching. Washington, D.C.: TESOL. Long, M.H. , Brock, C , Crookes, G. , Deicke, C , Potter, L., & Zhang, S. 1984. The effect of teachers' questioning patterns and wait-time on pupil p a r t i c i p a t i o n in public high school classes in Hawaii for students of limited English proficiency. Technical Report No. 1, Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu. Long, M.H. & Sato, S.J. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers' questions. In H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second.Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 92 Pica, T. & Long, M.H. 1982, March. The classroom l i n g u i s t i c and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. Paper presented at the 16th Annual TESOL Convention, Honolulu, Hawaii. Reeder, K.F. 1982. Longitudinal Study of Illocutionary Acts: Coding Manual. Department of Language Education. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Scarcella, R.C. & Higa, C. 1981. Input, negotiation and age differences in second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language Learning, 31(2), 409-437. Snow, C.E., van Eeden, R., & Muysken, P. 1981. The interactional origins of foreigner t a l k : municipal employees and foreign workers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 81-91. Snow, C.E. & Ferguson, C.A. (Eds.). 1977. Talking to children: language input and a c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Varonis, E.M. & Gass, S. 1982. The comprehensibility of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(2), 114-136. Warren-Leubecker, A. & Bohannon III , J.N. 1982. The ef f e c t s of expectation and feedback on speech to foreigners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2(3), 207-215. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Interactional Features of Discourse Definitions, Examples and Coding Conventions Notes. 1. Only teachers' utterances are coded. 2. The references to conversational turns include NNS as well as NS utterances. 3. An utterance i s coded for i t s relationship to the closest preceding utterance, i f two relationships are possible. For example, S: No, he isn't -doesn't. T3(1): No, he doesn't. T3(2): That's exactly i t -no, he doesn't. Utterance T3(2) is a SR. 4. Even i f only one clause of an utterance bears a relati o n s h i p to a preceding utterance, the utterance i s coded for that relationship. For example, T2(1): You have the 'me' there already, OK. T2(2): You have the 'me' there already - 'It was ins u l t i n g of him to write me a nasty l e t t e r ' - so you don't need 'to me' and 'me' again. Utterance T2(2) i s a SR. 5. Each teacher utterance w i l l either remain uncoded or be coded for a form or function feature or one of each. No utterance is coded for more than one form or function feature. The i n t e r a c t i o n a l features of discourse under study are: 1. Or-choice Questions (OR) Questions which include a choice of two or more possible answers in the questioning move (Long 1981b). E.g. Do you study? Or do you work? As in thi s example, the move usually consisted of two utterances. Only the second one i s coded as an or-choice question: both parts can be coded for a function 94 95 category. There may be another utterance separating the. two parts of an or-choice question, for example:3 S: XX T1(1): You were watching, you were looking? T1(2): OK. T1(3): Or were you singing? T1(1) i s coded as CC and SR. T1(3) i s coded as OR and RQ. The or-choice question may also have more than two parts: the last one is coded OR. Expansions (EX) The NS rephrases and/or repeats a l l or part of their own or the NNS's utterance within fiv e conversational turns of the o r i g i n a l utterance, and adds grammatical functors not supplied previously (Long (1981a) and Early (in press) considered only obligatory grammatical functors). Corrections, i d e n t i f i e d by f a l l i n g intonation and emphasis on the corrected segment, are not considered expansions, S: By bus. T3: For example, You came by bus? * * * * * * * * * * T4(1) : Lady. T4(2) : She's a lady. ********** T3: Yesterday,1 ... T3: Went to my apartment. ********** T3: A l l s t a r game, oh, right, yes. ********** T3(1): We'll look at some past tenses a l i t t l e l a t e r on, OK? T3(2): We'll look at maybe six or more of these special past tenses a l i t t l e b i t l a t e r . S: Went S:Allstars, S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s (SR) The Ns repeats their own utterance, either p a r t i a l l y or 3XX denotes an incomprehensible utterance 96 completely, with an exact or semantic repetition ( i . e . , paraphrase) within five conversational turns of the o r i g i n a l utterance (Long 1983a). For example, T2(1): How do you say t h i s word, M.? T2(2): How do you say that word? ********** T1 ( 1 ) : Something l i k e 'ask her husband to' - do what? T1(2): What would you suggest that he do? Repetitions within the same utterance (but not false starts or stuttering behaviour) are considered SRs. For example, T1 : OK, now, what kind of ice-cream, a l l right, so then we have to say what kind of ic e -cream. Repeated questions are not SRs i f dif f e r e n t NNSs. For example, T3(1): Are you married? T3(2): Are you married? T3(2) is not a SR. Other-repetitions (OT) The NS repeats the NNS's utterance, either p a r t i a l l y or completely, with an exact or semantic repetition ( i . e . , paraphrase) within fiv e conversational turns of the o r i g i n a l utterance (Long 1983a). For example, T1(1): Pardon me? S: And Wall Street. T2(2): And Wall Street. Repetitions of NNS utterances for the teacher's own benefit rather than the students' are not coded OT (often these are sotto voce). Display Questions (DQ) They are test or known information questions. Their purpose is to e l i c i t a display of knowledge from the NNS (Long & Sato 1983). The content of the response i s known or of no interest to the NS. The knowledge to be they are directed to S1: Yes, I am. S2: No, I'm not 97 displayed can be at a range of l e v e l s : spoken, written, pragmatic, syntactic, pronunciation, or world knowledge. For example, T1: When do you come to school everyday? (to practise the present habitual tense) ********** Tl : Say the whole sentence. 'Complete-the-sentence' questions are also display quest ions: Tl (1 ): When did you come to S: XX Canada? T1 (2) : I came — ? (r i s i n g intonation s i g n a l l i n g incomplete utterance) Both T1 utterances are DQ. A l l class management moves are disregarded ( i . e . , they are neither DQ nor RQ): T1 : You're asking him, right? ********** T1: Do you have any questions you'd l i k e to ask? Questions read from a text are considered neither DQs nor RQs, because they are non-conversational. Referential Questions (RQ) They are information questions which e l i c i t unknown information or opinions or attitudes (Long & Sato 1983). In addition, the speaker must be interested in the content of the response. For example: T1 : What did you read about? -********** T1: What do you think? Comprehension Checks (CO) 98 They are any expression by a NS designed to establish whether that speaker's preceding utterance has been understood by the interlocutor (Long & Sato 1983). Examples are 'Do you understand?, 'So, right?', 'OK? (with r i s i n g intonation), or any expression which can be paraphrased as 'Are you following me?' 'OK' and 'Right' used in t h i s way are distinguished from other uses as boundary markers and in the sense of 'Do you agree?' Boundary markers usually do not have r i s i n g intonation and agreement requests can be i d e n t i f i e d by context. Comprehension checks can ask either 'Do you understand the words I am saying?' or 'Do you understand what i s meant by the words I am saying?' 8. Confirmation Checks (CC) Any expression by a NS immediately following an utterance by a NNS which i s designed to e l i c i t confirmation that the utterance has been c o r r e c t l y heard or understood by the speaker. For example, 'Do you mean ....?' They always involve p a r t i a l or complete rep e t i t i o n of the NNS' utterance, and w i l l always e l i c i t unknown information (but RQ w i l l not be coded). They always have r i s i n g intonation with or without a tag. For example, S: They both go out to work. T3: So they need - they need to both work, you say, eh, because wages are so low. ( r i s i n g intonation medially) 9. C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests (CL) Any expression by a NS designed to e l i c i t c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the interlocutor's preceding utterance(s) (Long & Sato 1983). A CL i s considered to contain a RQ, so the l a t t e r i s not coded. They are most often interrogative, but may be declarative or imperative. For example, 'Pardon me?', 'Hm?', 'I don't understand', 'Try again' or S: From XX. T3: From — ? A P P E N D I X B C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Samples S u b j e c t s O b s e r v a t i o n s The C l a s s e s Years P r o f l No. of No. of S u b j e c t Sex Age Exper- c l e n c y Program Date U t t e r a n c e s Students % O r i e n t a l fence Level Teacher 1 45 17 LB Adv Hal f Hal f 20.2.84 13.2.84 685 546 13 17 92 88 Teacher 2 32 5.5 LB Adv H a l f Hal f 14.3.84 13.3.84 752 577 14 17 64 82 Teacher 3 35 LB Adv MP Hal f 1 , 19. 84 85 972 696 19 12 21 92 Teacher 4 37 LB Int4/ Adv MP NS 2 24 84 84 870 613 12 21 83 76 LEGEND A b b r e v i a t 1 o n Adv LB Int4 P r o f i c i e n c y Level Abbrev1 a t 1 on Advanced Lower Begi n n e r s h i g h e s t of f o u r I n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s Hal f MP NS Program Vancouver Community C o l l e g e / K i n g Edward Campus E n g l i s h Language T r a i n i n g H a l f Time VCC/KEC ELT Manpower VCC/KEC ELT Night School APPENDIX C Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Or-Choice Questions SOURCE SS df MS Main Effects LEVEL 0.38 1 0.38 0.90 .357 TEACHER 2.46 3 0.82 1.97 .160 Interaction L X T 0.13 3 0.04 0.10 .959 ERROR 6.67 16 0.42 Total 9.63 23 0.42 100. 101 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Expansions SOURCE SS df MS Main E f f e c t s LEVEL 5.04 1 5.04 0.88 .363 TEACHER 39.79 3 13.26 2.31 .116 Interact ion L X T 80.13 3 26.71 4.65 .016 ERROR 92.00 16 5.75 Total 216.96 23 9.43 102 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Self-Repetitions SOURCE SS df MS Main Ef f e c t s LEVEL 1040.17 1 1040.17 17.41 .001 TEACHER 1374.33 3 458.11 7.67 .002 Interact ion L X T 225.50 3 75.17 1.26 .322 ERROR 956.00 16 59.75 Total 3596.00 23 156.35 1 03 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Other-Repet i t ions SOURCE SS df MS Main E f f e c t s LEVEL 165.38 1 165.38 3.74 .071 TEACHER 630.46 3 210.15 4.76 .015 Interaction L X T 160.46 3 53.49 1.21 .338 ERROR 706.67 16 44.17 Total 1662.96 23 72.30 1 04 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Display Questions SOURCE SS df MS Main Effects LEVEL TEACHER 7490.67 2924.50 7490.67 974.83 36.82 4.79 .000 .014 Interact ion L X T ERROR 1 091.33 3255.33 3 1 6 363.78 203.46 1 .79 .190 Total 1 4761.83 23 641.82 1 05 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Referential Questions SOURCE SS df MS Main Effects LEVEL 1457.04 1 1457.04 19.36 .000 TEACHER 2194.13 3 731.38 9.72 .001 Interaction L X T 1790.79 3 596.93 7.93 .002 ERROR 1204.00 16 75.25 Total 6645.96 23 288.96 106 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Comprehension Checks SOURCE SS df MS Main E f f e c t s LEVEL 8.17 1 8.17 0.52 .482 TEACHER 279.33 3 93.11 5.91 .006 Interaction L X T 209.83 3 69.94 4.44 .019 ERROR 252.00 16 15.75 Total 749.33 23 32.58 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of Confirmation Checks SOURCE SS df MS Main E f f e c t s LEVEL 32.67 1 32.67 2.72 .118 TEACHER 385.33 3 128.44 10.70 .000 Interaction L X T 75.33 3 25.11 2.09 . 141 ERROR 192.00 16 12.00 Total 685.33 23 29.80 108 APPENDIX C (cont.) Summary of Analysis of Variance of Use of C l a r i f i c a t i o n Requests SOURCE SS df .MS Main Effects LEVEL 0.17 1 0.17 0.04 .854 TEACHER 11.67 3 3.89 0.82 .502 Interaction L X T 28.17 3 9.39 1.98 .158 ERROR 76.00 16 4.75 Total 116.00 23 5.04 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078256/manifest

Comment

Related Items