Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Communicative computer use in French as a second language learning Tijman, Diane Alexandra 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 T54.pdf [ 2.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078260.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078260-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078260-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078260-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078260-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078260-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078260-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078260-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078260.ris

Full Text

COMMUNICATIVE COMPUTER USE IN FRENCH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING by DIANE ALEXANDRA TIJMAN B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Language 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 as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1990 © Diane Alexandra Tijman 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it 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 is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of Britii Vancouver, Canada Department DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t Many second language (L2) t e a c h e r s are concerned about the use of computers i n the classroom and q u e s t i o n the v a l u e of u s i n g them i f they do not promote meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n . Research performed on French as a Second Language (FSL) students* language i n t e r a c t i o n a t the computer agrees w i t h Mohan's (1986) r e s e a r c h on E n g l i s h as a Second Language s t u d e n t s ' language i n t e r a c t i o n which suggests t h a t the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of i n t e r a c t i o n i s lower d u r i n g computer t a s k s compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n . Secondly, a n a l y s i s of the c o d e s w i t c h i n g (CS) of the FSL s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r a c t i o n suggests t h a t i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS shows f u n c t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n d i s c o u r s e d u r i n g computer use compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n . T h i s study examines the use of the computer t o f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r a c t i o n as w e l l as the p o s s i b l e r o l e of CS i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Acknowledgement For the i n v a l u a b l e h e l p w i t h r e s e a r c h , w r i t i n g and p r o d u c t i o n , I would l i k e t o thank my a d v i s o r y committee: S t u a r t Donn, Adel S a f t y and e s p e c i a l l y Bernard Mohan who as my p r i n c i p a l a d v i s o r was an i n s p i r a t i o n as t e a c h e r and mentor. As w e l l , I would l i k e t o thank Richmond School D i s t r i c t #34 f o r a l l o w i n g me t o perform t h i s study as w e l l as the ei g h t e e n students who v o l u n t e e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e . Undoubtedly t h i s t h e s i s may have never been completed without the p a t i e n c e , time and understanding of my husband, B r i a n , my son, Brendon, and my mother, Dorothy MacDicken. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e t o d e d i c a t e t h i s t h e s i s t o my daughter, Heather, whose imminent b i r t h was the impetus t o complete the t h e s i s on time. i v T a ble o f Contents A b s t r a c t i i Acknowledgement i i i Table o f Contents i v L i s t o f T a b l e s v i CHAPTER ONE: I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 CHAPTER TWO: Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 6 Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n Theory 6 Computer A s s i s t e d Language Le a r n i n g 8 Codeswitching 9 The L i n g u i s t i c P e r s p e c t i v e 10 The S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c P e r s p e c t i v e 12 The E d u c a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e 12 Codeswitching as a Communicative S t r a t e g y 14 Codeswitching and SLA 17 CHAPTER THREE: D e s c r i p t i o n and A n a l y s i s o f the Data. 19 Su b j e c t s 19 Design and Procedure 19 D e s c r i p t i o n of the Tasks 2 0 Language V a r i a t i o n 21 Analyses 2 3 R e s u l t s 2 3 T a b l e 1: T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n i n French and E n g l i s h 25 Tabl e 2: Percentage of French Used 27 T a b l e 3: R a t i o o f Comprehension Checks and C l a r i -f i c a t i o n Requests Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n . . . 29 Tab l e 4: R a t i o of R e p e t i t i o n s and R e p a i r s Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 30 Codeswitching 33 Tab l e 5: R a t i o of Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 36 T a b l e 6: R a t i o of I n t r a s e n t e n t i a l Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 37 T a b l e 7: R a t i o of I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 39 C o n c l u s i o n s on the Data 40 D i s c u s s i o n 40 The D i f f e r e n t Types of Codeswitching 42 Codeswitching as a Communicative S t r a t e g y 43 C a r e f u l and Casual Speech 43 C o n c l u s i o n 47 CHAPTER FOUR: Co n c l u s i o n s 48 Research I m p l i c a t i o n s 48 Pedagogical I m p l i c a t i o n s 49 Recommendations f o r Communicative Computer Use i n the FSL Classroom 50 G u i d e l i n e s f o r Computer Use i n L2 Classrooms .. 52 C o n c l u s i o n 53 References: • • • • 55 Appendix: 57 v i L i s t o f Tables T a b l e 1: T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n i n French 25 and E n g l i s h T a b l e 2: Percentage o f French Used 27 T a b l e 3: R a t i o of Comprehension Checks and C l a r i f i -c a t i o n Requests Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n . 29 T a b l e 4: R a t i o o f R e p e t i t i o n s and R e p a i r s Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 30 T a b l e 5: R a t i o of Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 3 3 Tab l e 6: R a t i o of I n t r a s e n t e n t i a l Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 3 7 Tab l e 7: R a t i o of I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n 39 1 CHAPTER ONE Communicative Computer Use i n French as a Second Language L e a r n i n g I n t r o d u c t i o n During the l a s t decade, second language (L2) t e a c h e r s have become i n t r i g u e d and a f f e c t e d by two d i f f e r e n t movements. F i r s t o f a l l , Krashen's t h e o r i e s on second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA) have convinced most L2 t e a c h e r s t h a t t o a c q u i r e a language, one must have comprehensible i n p u t t o achieve communicative competence. Furthermore, most t e a c h e r s would agree t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the i n p u t must occur and t h a t i t must be meaningful i n order f o r the L2 t o be i n t e r n a l i z e d . The second of these movements i s the r e c e n t i n t e r e s t i n CALL, (computer a s s i s t e d language l e a r n i n g ) . The r a p i d i n c r e a s e and a v a i l a b i l i t y o f microcomputers i n the s c h o o l s and the p a r e n t a l demands and e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the use of computers i n the classroom have put p r e s s u r e on t e a c h e r s t o use them. Yet the m a j o r i t y o f software programs a v a i l a b l e f o r the L2 t e a c h e r do not r e f l e c t the c u r r e n t emphasis on communicative competence. For the most p a r t , the programs have been w r i t t e n by n o n - s p e c i a l i s t s and p o r t r a y language l e a r n i n g i n the form of b e h a v i o u r i s t 2 p a t t e r n d r i l l s . Because of t h i s , s e v e r a l c r i t i c s o f CALL have expressed the i d e a t h a t the computer can a s s i s t i n the development of l i n g u i s t i c competence of the L2 y e t can do v e r y l i t t l e t o develop communicative competence. Many t e a c h e r s are q u e s t i o n n i n g the v a l u e o f u s i n g a computer when the software programs do not r e f l e c t the c u r r e n t p h i l o s o p h y i n L2 t e a c h i n g . S i n c e the p r e s e n t technology i s not advanced enough f o r the computer t o analyze c r e a t i v e , meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n , t e a c h e r s are faced w i t h the dilemma of how the computer can be used i n the L2 classroom e f f e c t i v e l y as a t o o l i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . T h i s study w i l l examine the communicative use of CALL. In so doing, i t w i l l analyze the language i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t occurs amongst French as a Second Language (FSL) h i g h s c h o o l students a t the computer and t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l be compared t o t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n away from the computer. A d i f f e r e n t approach from most p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s w i l l be taken i n t h i s study o f CALL i n t h a t the focus w i l l not be on a n a l y z i n g the success o f the computer as an i n s t r u c t o r . Rather, the focus w i l l be on the computer's a b i l i t y t o become the medium f o r encouraging peer i n t e r a c t i o n i n the L2. T h i s w i l l be done through the grouping o f students i n p a i r s a t the 3 computer and a s k i n g them t o speak t o each o t h e r i n French w h i l e u s i n g the d i f f e r e n t programs. I t i s hoped t h a t through t h i s study the b e s t s t i m u l i f o r encouraging communicative L2 use when a t the computer w i l l be determined. Furthermore, when a n a l y z i n g the determiners of what promotes SLA, i t i s important t o look a t the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of i n t e r a c t i o n i n the L2. S i n c e the q u a n t i t y of L2 t a l k d i m i n i s h e s w i t h the i n c r e a s e d use of the f i r s t language ( L I ) , i t i s c o n s i d e r e d more d e s i r a b l e t h a t L2 l e a r n e r s t r y t o m a i n t a i n a c o n s t a n t flow of thought i n the L2. Yet, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t l i m i t e d p r o f i c i e n c y (LP) l e a r n e r s w i t h the same LI w i l l use the LI and mix i t with the L2 when working i n p a i r s . T h i s type of language s w i t c h i n g i s c a l l e d c o d e s w i t c h i n g (CS). In t h i s study, the r o l e of CS i n SLA w i l l be examined. CS occurs f o r v a r i o u s reasons. For i n s t a n c e , w i t h p r o f i c i e n t b i l i n g u a l s , i t may occur f o r s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c purposes such as i n a work s e t t i n g where the i n d i v i d u a l codeswitches a c c o r d i n g t o the s i t u a t i o n or t o whom s/he i s speaking. However, wi t h LP l e a r n e r s the codeswitch o f t e n i n d i c a t e s a l a c k of necessary v o c a b u l a r y t o complete the communicative a c t . The codeswitch occurs 4 where the language gap needs t o be f i l l e d . There are ot h e r e d u c a t i o n a l reasons f o r CS amongst l i m i t e d French p r o f i c i e n c y (LFP) l e a r n e r s i n t o which t h i s study w i l l examine. In s p i t e o f much r e s e a r c h having been done on CS from a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c as w e l l as l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e , CS among LP l e a r n e r s i s an area where r e s e a r c h i s l a c k i n g . S i n c e i t would not appear t h a t the use o f the LI improves SLA but o f t e n i n t e r f e r e s , then codewitching i s p r o b l e m a t i c and needs t o be researched. W i t h i n t h i s study, counts on the number o f codeswitches as w e l l as d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f CS from French t o E n g l i s h w i l l be examined t o determine which s i t u a t i o n s s t i m u l a t e the g r e a t e s t use of the L2 i n a meaningful communicative way. The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses are proposed: 1. Q u a n t i t y o f t a l k v a r i e s among t a s k s . 2. Q u a l i t y o f t a l k v a r i e s among t a s k s . 3. Q u a n t i t y o f French v a r i e s among t a s k s . 4. Q u a n t i t y o f CS v a r i e s among t a s k s . 5. CS v a r i e s i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l l y and i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l l y among t a s k s . F i n a l l y , recommendations w i l l be made f o r the use of computers and language software i n the L2 classroom. With t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s may 5 make bet ter dec is ions on the purchase of computer hardware and software and the use of the computer as a t o o l i n f a c i l i t a t i n g SLA i n the future . 6 CHAPTER TWO Review of the L i t e r a t u r e Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n Theory When examining the r o l e o f the computer i n SLA, one must take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n some t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions about SLA. The f o l l o w i n g t h e o r i e s are c u r r e n t l y accepted by most L2 t e a c h e r s . A c c o r d i n g t o Krashen's Input Hypothesis, (1985), "humans a c q u i r e languages i n o n l y one way - by understanding messages, or by r e c e i v i n g 'comprehensible i n p u t " (p. 2 ) . As w e l l he q u e s t i o n s the v a l u e of formal L2 i n s t r u c t i o n a t a l l . T h e r e f o r e , when l o o k i n g a t the use of the computer as a t o o l i n SLA, what i s important t o l o o k f o r i s the computer's a b i l i t y t o promote comprehensible i n p u t r a t h e r than teach the language. S i n c e a c c o r d i n g t o Krashen, comprehensible i n p u t i s one of the keys t o SLA, then the q u a n t i t y o f comprehensible i n p u t a v a i l a b l e t o the student i s c r i t i c a l . Long (1985) has added t o t h i s n e c e s s i t y the q u a l i t y o f comprehensible i n p u t as b e i n g another requirement f o r SLA. He emphasizes t h a t students must exp e r i e n c e l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g n e g o t i a t i o n of the i n p u t . He s t a t e s t h a t " l e a r n e r s must be put i n a 7 p o s i t i o n o f b e i n g a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) the i n p u t thereby e n s u r i n g t h a t the l e v e l of language which i s heard i s m o d i f i e d t o e x a c t l y t o the l e v e l o f c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y they can manage" (Long & P o r t e r , 1985, p. 214). T h i s means t h a t the student who does not understand the message w i l l implement means t o reach f u r t h e r understanding. Such means i n c l u d e r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p a i r s , comprehension checks and c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s ts i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . The q u a l i t y o f i n t e r a c t i o n i s a f f e c t e d when such n e g o t i a t i o n i s not p o s s i b l e . T h i s occurs when students t r y t o l e a r n a second language from v a r i o u s media such as t e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o and books. A f u r t h e r concern f o r the language t e a c h e r i s how t o b e s t p r o v i d e students w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r comprehensible i n p u t . Many r e s e a r c h e r s argue t h a t group work maximizes the maximum amount of language i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom. Long and P o r t e r (1985) reviewed r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s between non-n a t i v e speakers (NNS). They found t h a t NNS/NNS i n t e r a c t i o n s p r o v i d e d more language p r a c t i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s and r e s u l t e d i n g r e a t e r n e g o t i a t i o n compared w i t h t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d l e s s o n s and n a t i v e speakers and non-native speakers. Hence, when students 8 work i n p a i r s , o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n a t the computer becomes p o s s i b l e . Computer use then becomes a p o s i t i v e , n a t u r a l s i t u a t i o n f o r i n p u t , n e g o t i a t i o n and SLA. T h i s i s the t h e o r e t i c a l base upon which t h i s study has been conducted. I t c o n c e n t r a t e s on i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i a l o g u e d u r i n g computer use, w h i l e i g n o r i n g r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g s k i l l s b e i n g used. They are areas worthy of f u r t h e r study i n order t o f u l l y understand the computer's r o l e i n SLA. Computer A s s i s t e d Language L e a r n i n g Although computer a s s i s t e d language l e a r n i n g (CALL) has been i n use i n L2 classrooms f o r n e a r l y a decade, i t has o n l y been r e c e n t l y t h a t t h e r e has been some i n t e r e s t shown i n u s i n g the computer i n a communicative way. Much of the CALL software programs has been o f the the d r i l l and p r a c t i c e type where the computer i m i t a t e s the i n s t r u c t o r , t e a c h i n g , p r a c t i c i n g and t e s t i n g a g i v e n language concept. Although the d r i l l and p r a c t i c e v a r i e t y o f programs may be a p p r o p r i a t e a t some times, they tend t o l e a d t o boredom q u i c k l y . U s i n g the computer i n a communicative manner i s a r e l a t i v e l y new way t o p e r c e i v e the use of the computer i n the L2 classroom. Canale and Barker (1985) s t r e s s the importance of u s i n g computer programs t h a t 9 have a h i g h l y i n t e g r a t i v e r a t h e r than d i s c r e t e - p o i n t f o c u s . They suggest t h a t "language educators should g i v e p r i o r i t y t o the t o o l and t u t e e uses o f software r a t h e r than the t u t o r uses." (p.19) Such programs would i n c l u d e word p r o c e s s o r s , s i m u l a t i o n games, problem-s o l v i n g t o o l s , and o t h e r software not n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e n ded f o r language l e a r n i n g . Underwood (1984) p o i n t s out t h a t one of the advantages o f u s i n g such software may be the s i d e e f f e c t of c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t occurs between students w h i l e working i n f r o n t of the s c r e e n . Rather than u s i n g a program e x p l i c i t l y designed t o t e a c h the language, the use of the software and the computer then become the medium f o r language i n t e r a c t i o n . Codeswitching (CS) Over the years i n the study of SLA, much a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d t o language v a r i a t i o n , one form of i t b e i n g CS, "the use of more than one language i n the course o f a s i n g l e communicative episode." ( H e l l e r , 1988, p . l ) In o r d e r t o b e t t e r understand why L2 l e a r n e r s codeswitch, r e s e a r c h e r s have analyzed d i s c o u r s e so as t o determine c o n s i s t e n c i e s w i t h i n CS. For a l a r g e p a r t , these analyses have been done from 10 t h r e e p e r s p e c t i v e s : the l i n g u i s t i c , s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c , and the e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . The L i n g u i s t i c P e r s p e c t i v e From the l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e o f CS, much r e s e a r c h has been done on t r y i n g t o determine a u n i v e r s a l grammar. In so doing, d i s c o u r s e has been s t u d i e d w i t h s p e c i a l emphasis on the l o c a t i o n of CS. Most of the an a l y s e s have co n c e n t r a t e d on the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l v e r s u s i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS. I n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS i n v o l v e s a codeswitch w i t h a s i n g l e sentence, phrase, or wi t h a s i n g l e word. I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS occurs w i t h an u t t e r a n c e o r extended d i s c o u r s e . The f o l l o w i n g t h e o r i e s o f CS have been proposed. F i r s t o f a l l , the s t u d i e s of CS have shown t h a t t h e r e are s i m i l a r i t i e s between languages. There i s one commonly h e l d t h e o r y t h a t CS tends t o occur where two languages match s y n t a c t i c a l l y (Clyne, 1987; L i p s k i , 1987; Poplack; 1982). T h i s has been c a l l e d the e q u i v a l e n c e - o f - s t r u c t u r e c o n s t r a i n t . As w e l l , the s i z e -o f - c o n s t i t u e n t c o n s t r a i n t i s c o n s i d e r e d a f a c t o r i n CS. G e n e r a l l y speaking, the s i z e - o f - c o n s t i t u e n t c o n s t r a i n t i n f e r s t h a t sentences and c l a u s e s are switched more f r e q u e n t l y than one-word c a t e g o r i e s , the e x c e p t i o n 11 be i n g nouns (Poplack, 1980). Furthermore, CS i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l l y has been a t t r i b u t e d t o b e i n g a s i g n of an advanced b i l i n g u a l ( L i p s k i , 1987; Poplack, 1982). B e r k - S e l i g s o n (1986) however, puts most of these t h e o r i e s i n t o d i s p u t e . In her study on Spanish-Hebrew CS amongst Spanish speaking b i l i n g u a l i n h a b i t a n t s of Jerusalem, she found evidence t h a t the e q u i v a l e n c e - o f -s t r u c t u r e c o n s t r a i n t was not a f a c t o r i n the CS. The b i l i n g u a l s codeswitched, o f t e n producing sentences t h a t were ungrammatical i n e i t h e r language. Secondly, she found t h a t the s i z e - o f - c o n s t i t u e n t c o n s t r a i n t was not a f a c t o r i n the CS because the Spanish/Hebrew b i l i n g u a l s f a v o r e d i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l s w i t c h i n g , r a t h e r than i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l s w i t c h i n g , u n l i k e most CS s t u d i e s . As w e l l , she found t h a t the CS was not r e l a t e d t o the degree o f b i l i n g u a l i s m . In a d i f f e r e n t study done on Spanish, Portuguese, and A l g e r i a n s i n France by Dabene and B i l l i e z (1986), they a l s o confirmed the l a c k of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between CS and the degree of b i l i n g u a l i s m . I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t much more r e s e a r c h needs t o be done on CS, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h d i s s i m i l a r languages. Moreover, f a c t o r s o t h e r than l i n g u i s t i c ones must be c o n s i d e r e d i n order t o understand the r o l e o f CS i n SLA. 12 The S o c i o l i n q u i s t i c P e r s p e c t i v e The r e s e a r c h e r s t a k i n g the s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c p o i n t of view s t r e s s the importance of the f u n c t i o n of language. They take i n t o account the s e t t i n g o f the c o n v e r s a t i o n , the i n t e r l o c u t o r s ' age, sex, and o c c u p a t i o n , as w e l l as the t o p i c and purpose of the i n t e r a c t i o n . The s t a t u s of a m i n o r i t y language i n a m a j o r i t y group and i t s disappearance or growth a l s o can be a f a c t o r . For i n s t a n c e , an i n d i v i d u a l may choose t o codeswitch t o f a c i l i t a t e communication but as w e l l as t o d e f i n e the s o c i a l boundaries of the i n t e r a c t i o n . In so doing, s/he may r e j e c t the c o n v e n t i o n a l language of use i n o r d e r t o perform a r o l e , one t h a t s/he p e r c e i v e s o r s o c i e t y p e r c e i v e s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , CS i s seen here as a f a c t o r t h a t v a r i e s depending on the s i t u a t i o n and i n t e r l o c u t o r s t h a t the speaker encounters, r a t h e r than simply b e i n g a s o l u t i o n t o a communication gap i n a language one l a c k s knowledge. The E d u c a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e From an e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , v e r y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been done on the CS of L2 l e a r n e r s , e s p e c i a l l y t h a t of LP l e a r n e r s . Most of the s t u d i e s 13 have looked a t the d i s c o u r s e of balanced b i l i n g u a l s , most o f whom were of Spanish o r i g i n l i v i n g i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . A few s t u d i e s have looked a t the CS of i n s t r u c t o r s i n the L2 classroom. A t k i n s o n (1987) suggests t h a t n i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of the i n s t r u c t i o n s hould be done i n the t a r g e t language, w i t h f i v e p e r c e n t i n the mother tongue f o r optimum i n s t r u c t i o n . He suggests t h a t the LI be used t o e l i c i t the L2 when r e q u e s t i n g the t r a n s l a t i o n f o r a g i v e n word i n order t o a v o i d any ambiguity t h a t may occur w i t h the use of v i s u a l s , g e s t u r e s or e x p l a n a t i o n s i n the L2. As w e l l , he suggests the LI can be used t o check comprehension, g i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s , t e s t , p r e s e n t and r e i n f o r c e language, and d i s c u s s language methodology wi t h s t u d e n t s . In FSL classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia, when a student attempts t o communicate i n French, s/he o f t e n uses CS. Teachers a l s o use i t t o improve communication o f i d e a s such as i n the e x p l a n a t i o n of grammar p o i n t s . CS i s a n e c e s s i t y and a r e a l i t y f o r the l e a r n e r , y e t v e r y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been g i v e n t o i t . In f a c t , i t i s more o f t e n d i s c o u r a g e d because the use of E n g l i s h i s p e r c e i v e d by most t e a c h e r s as an i n t e r f e r i n g f a c t o r i n French a c q u i s i t i o n . Perhaps t h i s e x p l a i n s why so l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on CS has o c c u r r e d w i t h i n the realm o f e d u c a t i o n . Codeswitching as a Communicative S t r a t e g y A few e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s i n t e r e s t e d i n l i n g u i s t i c s have d e s c r i b e d CS as an example of a communicative s t r a t e g y ( E l l i s , 1986; Faerch and Kasper, 1980; Tarone, 1980). Upon f a c i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n L2 speech p r o d u c t i o n or r e c e p t i o n , the l e a r n e r may t r y v a r i o u s communicative s t r a t e g i e s or p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g d e v i c e s t o get the message a c r o s s t o the i n t e r l o c u t o r . Reduction s t r a t e g i e s and achievement s t r a t e g i e s are two means which the l e a r n e r may use t o communicate. Reduction s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d e a v o i d i n g or abandoning the communication d i f f i c u l t y , i . e . dropping the t o p i c or problem from c o n v e r s a t i o n . They w i l l not be analyzed or d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s study because they do not t e l l us a n y t h i n g about the l e a r n e r ' s attempts t o improve communication and as w e l l are d i f f i c u l t t o determine i n d i s c o u r s e . Achievement s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d e s u b s t i t u t i o n , p a r a p h r a s i n g , r e s t r u c t u r i n g and L I - and L3-(in t e r l a n g u a g e ) based s t r a t e g i e s such as CS ( t r a n s f e r o r borrowing), f o r e i g n i z i n g and l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n . I n c l u d e d under achievement s t r a t e g i e s are non-15 l i n g u i s t i c s t r a t e g i e s such as mime o r gesture, and c o o p e r a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s such as d i r e c t l y a s k i n g the i n t e r l o c u t o r f o r h e l p o r e x p l a n a t i o n . With LP l e a r n e r s , L l - b a s e d achievement s t r a t e g i e s such as CS are e x t e n s i v e l y used whereas a t more advanced l e v e l s , a v a r i e t y o f communicative s t r a t e g i e s a re t y p i c a l l y used by l e a r n e r s (Faerch and Kasper, 1983, p. 164). E l l i s (1986), i n h i s syn o p s i s o f the r e s e a r c h on l e a r n e r s t r a t e g i e s , s t a t e s t h a t i n g e n e r a l LP l e a r n e r s p r e f e r r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s o r L l - b a s e d achievement s t r a t e g i e s w h i l e the more advanced l e a r n e r s p r e f e r L2-based achievement s t r a t e g i e s . Furthermore, he suggests t h a t the p e r s o n a l i t y o f the l e a r n e r appears t o have a c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h s t r a t e g y p r e f e r e n c e . Some students a re more w i l l i n g t o run the r i s k o f making a mistake w h i l e o t h e r s p r e f e r t o a v o i d making mistakes. He a l s o suggests t h a t r i s k - t a k i n g or achievement s t r a t e g i e s can a l s o be i n f l u e n c e d by the classroom t e a c h e r . For i n s t a n c e the L2 t e a c h e r who focuses on content over form, o r encourages an attempt i n L2 p r o d u c t i o n r a t h e r than no attempt a t a l l w i l l encourage l e a r n e r s t h a t use achievement s t r a t e g i e s r a t h e r than r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Furthermore, Faerch and Kasper (1986) a t t r i b u t e CS t o be i n g a " s t r a t e g i c t r a n s f e r " , i . e . a planned, c o n s c i o u s codeswitch, o r as an "automatic t r a n s f e r " , i . e . an unplanned, unconscious codeswitch. However, they admit t o not being a b l e t o always determine which k i n d o f d e v i c e i s being used a t any g i v e n time because i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine what i s happening i n the mind of the l e a r n e r , c o n s c i o u s l y o r s u b c o n s c i o u s l y . In Labov's study o f the s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e s o f the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f E n g l i s h , (1966) he d i s t i n g u i s h e s between c a r e f u l and c a s u a l speech. These terms show s i m i l a r q u a l i t i e s t o the terms s t r a t e g i c and automatic t r a n s f e r t h a t Faerch and Kasper use y e t are e a s i e r t o determine. S i n c e the type o f CS may a l t e r d u r i n g c a r e f u l and c a s u a l speech, these terms seem a p p r o p r i a t e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r use when l a b e l l i n g the CS. C a r e f u l speech i n v o l v e s p l a n n i n g o f the speech a c t , w i t h f r e q u e n t pauses f o r thought, whereas c a s u a l speech i n v o l v e s no p l a n n i n g , but r a t h e r spontaneous speech, s p u r r e d on by p r e s s u r e , excitement o r f r u s t r a t i o n . The terms w i l l be used when a n a l y z i n g and d i s c u s s i n g the d i f f e r e n t types o f CS. There i s some c o n t r o v e r s y over which k i n d o f s t r a t e g i e s f a c i l i t a t e a c q u i s i t i o n and l e a r n i n g . Faerch and Kasper (1983) argue t h a t the use of achievement 17 s t r a t e g i e s r a t h e r than r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s encourages h y p o t h e s i s fo r m a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e enhances l e a r n i n g . Tarone (1980) d i s a g r e e s and s t a t e s t h a t a l l communicative s t r a t e g i e s are h e l p f u l . E l l i s (1986) concludes i n h i s chapter on communicative s t r a t e g i e s t h a t i t i s not y e t c l e a r whether L I - or L2-based s t r a t e g i e s a re more h e l p f u l than the other, o r which a s p e c t s o f SLA are a f f e c t e d by these s t r a t e g i e s . Codeswitching and SLA From a s p e c u l a t i v e p o i n t o f view, the CS may be regarded as a means t o improve communication when fa c e d w i t h a L2 d i f f i c u l t y . In some i n s t a n c e s , the L2 l e a r n e r cbdeswitches and i n so doing, a l l o w s the communication t o flow without a v o i d i n g o r dropping the t o p i c from c o n v e r s a t i o n . In t h i s sense, the LI becomes a t o o l t o n e g o t i a t e meaning and f a c i l i t a t e communication. When l e a r n e r s use the LI i n such a manner, the s t r e s s l e v e l may be lowered. For some l e a r n e r s i t may be the e a s i e s t and f a s t e s t means by which the message can be communicated. Hence, CS may a l l o w f o r the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y o f o v e r a l l t a l k t o i n c r e a s e when i t i s used i n the n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning. N e i t h e r Krashen nor Long acknowledge CS as having a r o l e i n SLA y e t i t does appear t h a t CS has a r o l e i n 18 c e r t a i n k i n d s of i n t e r a c t i o n . Such c u r r e n t l y accepted t h e o r i e s e v e n t u a l l y w i l l have t o widen t h e i r scope and r e c o g n i z e t h e r o l e of CS i n SLA. CS, t h e r e f o r e , can be c a l l e d an achievement s t r a t e g y t h a t p r o v i d e s a means by which the l e a r n e r can c o n t i n u e communicating without r e s o r t i n g t o t o p i c d e l e t i o n o r avoidance. From a l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e s c r i b e the d i f f e r e n t types of CS as i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l or i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l switches t h a t v a r y between languages sometimes a f f e c t e d by the e q u i v a l e n c e - o f - s t r u c t u r e and the s i z e - o f - c o n s t i t u e n t c o n s t r a i n t s . From a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e , the l o c a t i o n , i n t e r l o c u t o r s , and the speaker's age, sex, or s o c i a l s t a t u s can i n f l u e n c e the CS. From an e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , i n a d d i t i o n t o l o o k i n g a t CS as a L l - b a s e d communicative s t r a t e g y t h a t may be i n f l u e n c e d by the l e a r n e r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l i n the L2, the t e a c h e r and classroom s i t u a t i o n , i t appears t h a t CS may occur f o r o t h e r reasons as w e l l . 19 CHAPTER THREE Description and Analysis of the Data Subjects The students chosen were nine matched p a i r s : eight males, ten females, ranging i n age between f i f t e e n and sixteen years of age i n t h e i r fourth year of FSL. They volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the a c t i v i t i e s and represent a mix i n language a b i l i t i e s . Design and Procedure Nine pairs of students completed four tasks. Eight p a i r s were matched for sex and age i n a Latin square, with one extra p a i r . Since no sequential order influence was evident i n the tasks, the ninth p a i r was included i n the analysis. Ten minutes were a l l o t t e d for each task and the time lapse between performance of the four tasks was minimal. Before the series of computer tasks began, the students were instructed i n English on the basic operation of the computer and the programs. For comparison purposes, one of the four tasks was conversation. A videotape was made while the students worked on each task and tr a n s c r i p t s of the recorded interactions were made thereafter. 20 D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Tasks The computer programs used i n c l u d e d a v o c a b u l a r y program, a word p r o c e s s i n g program, and a game. They r e p r e s e n t t y p i c a l software programs used i n FSL c l a s s e s . The v o c a b u l a r y program i s formatted i n the s t y l e o f a d r i l l and p r a c t i c e program; the word p r o c e s s i n g program can be used as a t o o l t o develop w r i t i n g s k i l l s ; and the game i s a review e x e r c i s e of thematic v o c a b u l a r y . Although most of the students had some background i n computers, the programs chosen were u n f a m i l i a r t o them. They are d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s . The v o c a b u l a r y program c o n s i s t e d of q u e s t i o n s w i t h f i l l - i n - t h e - b l a n k w i t h the c o r r e c t word from a l i s t o f m u l t i p l e c h o i c e answers. Working i n p a i r s , the students then chose t h e number of the c o r r e c t item and the computer would r e p l y i f the answer was c o r r e c t o r not, w i t h a comment i n French such as "Bien!" or "Essayez encore". The program would not c o n t i n u e on t o the next q u e s t i o n u n t i l the student typed i n the c o r r e c t answer. The e n t i r e program, i n c l u d i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s , was pr e s e n t e d i n French. As w e l l , the program allowed the stu d e n t s t o choose the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l and the number of q u e s t i o n s t o be done. At the end o f the program, the 21 students were informed of the number of c o r r e c t and i n c o r r e c t responses. U s i n g a word p r o c e s s i n g program, each p a i r o f students was asked t o w r i t e a l e t t e r c o o p e r a t i v e l y t o t h e i r t e a c h e r d e s c r i b i n g what they had been doing s i n c e her l e a v e from the s c h o o l . As w e l l , each p a i r worked w i t h a game. T h i s game asked the students t o p i c k a theme such as c l o t h i n g , animals, o r food. Then the computer proceeded t o draw an item from t h a t theme on the screen. The students, timed a g a i n s t the c l o c k on the computer screen, had t o s p e l l c o r r e c t l y the item they b e l i e v e d the ske t c h t o be. When g e t t i n g the answer c o r r e c t , the students were g i v e n p o i n t s depending upon the r a p i d i t y o f t h e i r answer. When i n c o r r e c t , they l o s t p o i n t s and the computer d i s p l a y e d the c o r r e c t answer on the scr e e n . Language V a r i a t i o n S i n c e many s t u d i e s have shown t h a t language v a r i e s between t a s k , t h i s study has chosen t o look a t s e v e r a l t a s k s i n f r o n t of the computer as w e l l as one t a s k away from the computer. In order t o determine the l e v e l o f the s t u d e n t s ' d i s c o u r s e a b i l i t i e s , the students were r e q u i r e d t o converse i n p a i r s on t o p i c s they chose. T h i s study has been performed t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the f o l l o w i n g L2 t h e o r i e s . A c c o r d i n g t o Krashen (1988, p. 1), SLA " r e q u i r e s meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n i n the t a r g e t language - n a t u r a l communication - i n which speakers are concerned not w i t h the form o f t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s but w i t h the messages they a re conveying and understanding." T h i s he s t a t e s l e a d s t o comprehensible i n p u t . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s , f u r t h e r i n t e r a c t i o n can occur, making language a c q u i s i t i o n p o s s i b l e . As w e l l as comprehensible i n p u t , n e g o t i a t i o n o f t h a t i n p u t i s f e l t t o be e q u a l l y important. Many t e a c h e r s agree w i t h Long and P o r t e r (1985) i n t h a t "Learners must be put i n a p o s i t i o n o f b e i n g a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e the inp u t , thereby e n s u r i n g t h a t the language i n which i t i s heard i s m o d i f i e d t o e x a c t l y the l e v e l o f c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y they can manage." (p. 214). As w e l l , many r e s e a r c h e r s s t a t e t h a t m o d i f i c a t i o n s made t o u t t e r a n c e s , i . e . i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s such as comprehension checks, c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s , r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p a i r s , promote language a c q u i s i t i o n . B e a r i n g t h i s i n mind, i t would appear then t h a t i n L2 classrooms, students should be performing t a s k s t h a t encourage such i n t e r a c t i o n and n e g o t i a t i o n o f i n p u t . T h e r e f o r e , i t seems most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r students t o do groupwork. A l l f o u r t a s k s have been done i n p a i r s i n t h i s study. Working i n p a i r s or s m a l l groups i n c r e a s e s the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of student t a l k , a l l o w s f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n , and c r e a t e s a p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e environment f o r l e a r n i n g . (Long & P o r t e r , 1985). Analyses A one-way repeated measures d e s i g n a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was used t o determine i f t h e r e were any d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s c o u r s e as a r e s u l t of the t a s k (Wilkinson, 1989, p. 509). C o n t r a s t s between the c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k and the d i f f e r e n t computer t a s k s f o l l o w e d (Wilkinson, p. 452). The rank o r d e r of q u a n t i t i e s f o r each p a i r was t e s t e d u s i n g Friedman's non-parametric 2-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (Wilkinson, p. 599). As a rank-order s t a t i s t i c t h i s does not take i n t o account the s i z e of the d i f f e r e n c e between c o n v e r s a t i o n and computer use: The q u a n t i t y o f speech i n c o n v e r s a t i o n averaged twice as h i g h than i n any type of computer use. R e s u l t s In the i n i t i a l study of the data, gross word counts i n French and E n g l i s h were done t o determine d i f f e r e n c e s i n the q u a n t i t y o f student t a l k . The gros s word counts f o r each p a i r d u r i n g each t a s k are shown i n Ta b l e 1. I t appears as i f the c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k promoted the g r e a t e s t q u a n t i t y o f t a l k . F o l l o w i n g t h a t , the r e s u l t s o f the ANOVA are d i s p l a y e d , which i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was l e s s t a l k o v e r a l l d u r i n g computer use compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n (F = 6.847, d f 3, p < .002). Computer t a s k s c o n t r a s t e d w i t h c o n v e r s a t i o n agree w i t h t h i s (F = 15.809, d f 3, p < .004). The rank o r d e r o f q u a n t i t i e s f o r each p a i r was t e s t e d u s i n g Friedman's non-parametric 2-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from chance (p < .020). 25 Ta b l e 1 T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n of French and E n g l i s h Conv. Wp. Vocab. Game P a i r 1 P a i r 2 P a i r 3 P a i r 4 P a i r 5 P a i r 6 P a i r 7 P a i r 8 P a i r 9 686.000 361.000 372.000 412.000 323.000 301.000 243.000 191.000 207.000 212.000 62.000 397.000 190.000 138.000 100.000 103.000 76.000 94.000 202.000 134.000 125.000 183.000 138.000 91.000 82.000 345.000 281.000 178.000 228.000 148.000 201.000 282.000 191.000 85.000 112.000 101.000 Conv. Wp. Vocab. Game Means 344.000 152.444 175.667 169.556 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F-Test Source SS DF MS F P Hypothesis 216742.306 3 72247.435 6.847 0.002 E r r o r 253242.440 24 10551.769 Note. Conv. r e f e r s t o the c o n v e r s a t i o n data; Wp. r e f e r s t o the wordprocessing data; Vocab. r e f e r s t o the vo c a b u l a r y program data; Game r e f e r s t o the game program d a t a . 26 In g e n e r a l , most r e s e a r c h e r s would agree t h a t the use of the LI does not appear t o f a c i l i t a t e SLA. T h e r e f o r e , the g r e a t e r amount of French used d u r i n g the d i f f e r e n t t a s k s c o u l d be an i n d i c a t o r of the b e t t e r s t i m u l a t o r f o r SLA. The next aspect of the data t h a t was examined was the t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n of speech i n French. Looking a t Table 2, one can see t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n appears t o s t i m u l a t e the g r e a t e s t French p r o d u c t i o n whereas the computer t a s k s seem t o produce l e s s French o v e r a l l , w i t h the use of the game be i n g the l e a s t p r o d u c t i v e . T a b l e 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a n c e o c c u r r e d w i t h the use of French over E n g l i s h d u r i n g the f o u r t a s k s (F = 25.409, df 3, p < .000). Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t are the dependent v a r i a b l e means which show c o n v e r s a t i o n averaging w i t h 85% French usage whereas the computer t a s k s average between 3 5% and 59% French usage. The c o n t r a s t a n a l y s i s between c o n v e r s a t i o n and the t h r e e computer t a s k s f u r t h e r agrees w i t h t h i s (F = 41.066, df 3, p < .000). U s i n g Friedman's non-parametric 2-way ANOVA, the rank o r d e r of q u a n t i t i e s f o r each p a i r was t e s t e d and found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from chance (p < .000). T a b l e 2 Percentage o f French Used P a i r 1 P a i r 2 P a i r 3 P a i r 4 P a i r 5 P a i r 6 P a i r 7 P a i r 8 P a i r 9 Means Conv. 96.000 69.000 61.000 94.000 95.000 81.000 95.000 89.000 83.000 Conv. 84.778 Wp. 57.000 47.000 53.000 67.000 65.000 23.000 94.000 55.000 71.000 Wp. 59.111 Vocab. 83.000 68.000 64.000 55.000 70.000 9.000 73.000 42.000 42.000 Vocab. 56.222 Game 57.000 18.000 24.000 51.000 32.000 7.000 62.000 29.000 38.000 Game 35.333 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F-Test Source SS DF MS F P Hypothesis 11090.306 3 3696.769 23.572 0.000 E r r o r 3763.944 24 156.831 The f o l l o w i n g step i n t h i s study examined the q u a l i t y o f t a l k o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g the f o u r t a s k s . S i n c e m o d i f i c a t i o n s made t o u t t e r a n c e s a re means by which one improves communication and i s a s i g n o f SLA o c c u r r i n g , many r e s e a r c h e r s a t t r i b u t e t h e i r occurrence t o b e i n g a s i g n o f the q u a l i t y o f t a l k . The number of m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s were counted f o r each t a s k . T a b l e 3 d i s p l a y s the use of comprehension checks and c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s ts and Tab l e 4 d i s p l a y s the use o f r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p a i r s . The f i r s t column i n c l u d e s the c o n v e r s a t i o n away from the computer data and the o t h e r t h r e e t a s k s i n v o l v e c o n v e r s a t i o n w h i l e n e g o t i a t i n g a t a s k a t the computer. T a b l e 3 R a t i o o f Comprehension Checks and C l a r i f i c a t i o n  Requests Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n P a i r Conv. Wp. Vocab • Game 1 0.010 (7) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0.011 (2) 2 0.003 (1) 0.016 (2) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 3 0.027 (1) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0. 000 (0) 4 0.005 (2) 0.000 (0) 0.005 (0) 0.000 (0) 5 0.000 (2) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (1) 0.000 (0) 6 0.000 (0) 0. 000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0. 000 (0) 7 0.004 (0) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 8 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0. 000 (0) 9 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) 0.000 (0) T o t a l Raw Scores (14) (2) (1) (2) Means Conv • Wp. Vocab Game 0.005 0.002 0.001 0. 001 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F - t e s t Source SS DF MS F P Hypothesis 0.000 3 0.000 1.405 0.266 E r r o r 0.001 24 0.000 Note. Raw sc o r e s are w r i t t e n i n b r a c k e t s . 30 Table 4 R a t i o o f R e p e t i t i o n s and Re p a i r s Over T o t a l O r a l  P r o d u c t i o n P a i r Conv. Wp. Vocab. T o t a l Raw Scores Means (161) Conv. 0.029 (95) Wp. 0.075 Game 1 0. 047 (32) 0. 050 (08) 0. 075 (16) 0. 028 (05) 2 0. 036 (13) 0. 070 (02) 0. 060 (08) 0. 022 (05) 3 0. 040 (15) 0. 070 (28) 0. 048 (06) 0. 034 (05) 4 0. 002 (57) 0. 089 (17) 0. 055 (10) 0. 034 (07) 5 0. 089 (29) 0. 072 (10) 0. 070 (12) 0. 070 (20) 6 0. 013 (04) 0. 030 (03) 0. 000 (00) 0. 000 (00) 7 0. 004 (15) 0. 155 (16) 0. 073 (06) 0. 035 (03) 8 0. 004 (05) 0. 092 (07) 0. 100 (35) 0. 044 (05) 9 0. 029 (06) 0. 043 (04) 0. 000 (00) 0. 010 (01) (93) Vocab, 0.046 (51) Game 0.031 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F-Test Source SS DF MS Hypothesis E r r o r 0.012 0.020 3 24 0.004 0. 001 F P 4.806 0.009 Note. Raw sc o r e s are w r i t t e n i n b r a c k e t s . 31 There appears t o be some v a r i a t i o n between t a s k based on t h e use of i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s made i n d i s c o u r s e , e s p e c i a l l y i f one l o o k s a t the raw data. In T a b l e s 3 and 4, c o n v e r s a t i o n appears t o be a g r e a t e r s t i m u l a t o r f o r the use o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s because t h e r e i s a h i g h e r frequency i n the use of these d e v i c e s compared t o the computer t a s k s . However, because the data are c o n t r o l l e d by t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n , the v a r i a t i o n d i m i n i s h e s when turned i n t o a r a t i o . When l o o k i n g a t the r a t i o s , the g r e a t e s t frequency of r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p a i r s occurs d u r i n g the use of the wordprocessing program. There i s a p o s s i b l e reason f o r t h i s o t h e r than being means of n e g o t i a t i n g i n p u t d u r i n g d i s c o u r s e . During the use of the wordprocessing program, the students t y p i c a l l y repeated themselves as they typed. R: Nous, nous, nous, sommes? uh.... G: Nous, nous sommes uh.... R: Nous sommes...oui. Nous sommes a v o i r un p a r t y . Ha ha! G: Nous sommes a v o i r un p a r t y . Ha ha! Perhaps these types of r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p a i r s do not always r e p r e s e n t t r u e m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n speech d u r i n g n e g o t i a t i o n of the t a s k but r a t h e r a v e r b a l i z a t i o n of the s t u d e n t s ' thoughts w h i l e they typed. 32 I t appears t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n might encourage the use of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s mentioned above. However, the use of the computer programs does not appear t o encourage any s i g n i f i c a n t use of i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s whatsoever. Mohan (1986) a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d the i n t e r a c t i o n o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language students d u r i n g computer use compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n and had somewhat s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s . Computer use produced lower q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y o f i n t e r a c t i o n than i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n . In h i s study, f o r each p a i r the q u a n t i t y o f speech was two t o t h r e e times h i g h e r f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n compared t o computer use. Frequency of c o n f i r m a t i o n checks was used as the measure of the q u a l i t y o f speech and n e g o t i a t i o n and once a g a i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k produced a g r e a t e r number of c o n f i r m a t i o n checks than d u r i n g computer use. In s p i t e o f these p r e l i m i n a r y analyses o f the data showing p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between the t a s k s , i t was f e l t t h a t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s was warranted based on the CS i n t o E n g l i s h d u r i n g the d i f f e r e n t t a s k s . Although the students were asked t o speak o n l y i n French, a l l o f them used E n g l i s h o c c a s i o n a l l y and i n some cases f r e q u e n t l y . The p u z z l i n g e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l 33 reasons f o r t h i s CS from French t o E n g l i s h i n s p i r e d the l a t t e r p a r t o f t h i s study. Codeswitching I d e a l l y , t he FSL t e a c h e r s t r i v e s t o c r e a t e a t a s k where the students can p r a c t i c e the flow o f French without the i n t e r r u p t i o n o f E n g l i s h . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , t h i s k i n d o f t a s k may i n c r e a s e the a b i l i t y t o t h i n k i n French and r e s u l t i n h i g h e r a c q u i s i t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s important t o determine what ki n d s o f t a s k s a l l o w f o r t h i s type o f p r a c t i c e i n the use of French. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n CS among t a s k s c o u l d p o s s i b l y r e v e a l which t a s k f a v o r s French usage wi t h minimal i n t e r r u p t i o n and perhaps encourages SLA. The r a t i o o f the t o t a l number of codeswitches i n t o E n g l i s h over the t o t a l number of words f o r each p a i r d u r i n g each t a s k are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 5. The means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , means squares and F v a l u e s are shown t h e r e a f t e r . The ANOVA supports the h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t CS v a r i e s among t a s k s i n t h a t CS occurs l e a s t o f t e n d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n (F = 4.230, d f 3, p < 0.019). A f u r t h e r c o n t r a s t a n a l y s i s shows t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n d i f f e r s from the computer t a s k s i n the use of CS (F = 48.675, d f 1, p < 0.000). Friedman's non-parametric 2-way ANOVA was used t o t e s t the rank order o f q u a n t i t i e s 34 for each p a i r and the rank order was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p < 0.006). T a b l e 5 R a t i o of Codeswitchina Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n Conv. Wp. Vocab. P a i r 1 2.770 7.075 5.446 P a i r 2 4.432 16.129 8.209 P a i r 3 6.720 7.053 8.800 P a i r 4 2.184 7.368 12.022 P a i r 5 2.477 6.522 8.696 P a i r 6 2.990 7.000 7.692 P a i r 7 4.115 2.913 4.878 P a i r 8 4.712 9.211 10.435 P a i r 9 2.415 6.383 6. 050 Means Conv. Wp. Vocab. 3.646 7.739 8.025 Game 14.697 9.211 10.135 7.901 1.773 3.141 14.118 7.143 4.950 Game 8.119 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F-Test Source SS DF MS Hypothesis 126.385 3 42.128 4.230 0.019 E r r o r 239.035 24 9.960 F i n a l l y , the d i f f e r e n t types of CS were broken down and a nalyzed. Tables 6 and 7 l i s t the r a t i o o f i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l and i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS over t o t a l word p r o d u c t i o n f o r the f o u r t a s k s . The ANOVAS f o l l o w and show t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the use o f i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS (F = 1.216, df 3, p < 0.325). A c o n t r a s t a n a l y s i s performed between i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS and the t h r e e computer t a s k s s t i l l shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (F = 4.036, df 3, p < 0.079). A f u r t h e r t e s t u s i n g Friedman's non-parametric 2-way ANOVA shows not h i n g c o n c l u s i v e about the d i f f e r e n c e s i n rank order (p < 0.137). However, when l o o k i n g a t i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS, t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . The use of the computer game appears t o promote the use of i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS (F = 4.729, df 3, p < 0.010). C o n t r a s t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the t h r e e computer t a s k s agrees w i t h t h i s statement (F = 128.741, df 3, p < 0.000). The rank order of q u a n t i t i e s f o r each p a i r show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (p < 0.004). T a b l e 6 R a t i o o f I n t r a s e n t e n t i a l Codeswitchincr Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n Conv. Wp. Vocab. Game P a i r 1 2.478 3.302 2.970 8.427 P a i r 2 2.216 6.452 5.970 1.754 P a i r 3 3.226 2.771 4.000 3 . 378 P a i r 4 1.214 3.158 6.011 2.980 P a i r 5 2.167 3.623 5.072 0.000 P a i r 6 0. 664 2.000 0.000 1.047 P a i r 7 3.704 2.913 2.439 2 . 353 P a i r 8 3.141 3.947 4.638 3.571 P a i r 9 1.932 2.128 1.423 0.990 Means Conv. Wp. Vocab. Game 2 .305 3.366 3.614 2.722 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F-Test Source SS DF MS F P Hypothesis 9.641 3 3.214 1.216 0.325 E r r o r 63.443 24 2.643 T a b l e 7 R a t i o o f I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l Codeswitching Over T o t a l O r a l  P r o d u c t i o n Conv. Wp. Vocab. Game P a i r 1 0.292 3.774 2.475 6.180 P a i r 2 2.216 9.677 2.239 7.456 P a i r 3 3.495 4.282 4.800 6.757 P a i r 4 0.971 4.211 6.011 4.470 P a i r 5 0.310 2.899 3.623 1.773 P a i r 6 2.326 5.000 7.692 2.094 P a i r 7 0.412 0.000 2.439 11.765 P a i r 8 1.571 5.263 5.797 3.571 P a i r 9 0.483 4.255 4.626 3.960 Conv. Wp. Vocab. Game Means 1. 342 4.373 4.411 5.336 U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures F - t e s t Source SS DF MS F P Hypothesis 81.793 3 27.264 4.729 0.010 E r r o r 138.377 24 5.766 39 C o n c l u s i o n s on the data 1. There was l e s s student i n t e r a c t i o n d u r i n g computer use compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n . 2. There was l e s s French i n t e r a c t i o n d u r i n g the computer t a s k s . 3. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the use of i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s d u r i n g the f o u r t a s k s . 4. The g r e a t e s t amount of CS o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the use o f the game. 5 . The l e a s t amount of CS o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k . 6 . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the use of i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS d u r i n g the f o u r t a s k s . 7. There was a g r e a t e r use of i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS d u r i n g the use of the game. D i s c u s s i o n When examining the data, one can see t h a t the t o t a l word p r o d u c t i o n as w e l l as the percentage o f spoken French v e r s u s E n g l i s h are c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e s t d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n . (See Ta b l e s 1 - 2). There are s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h i s . During the c o n v e r s a t i o n task, when faced w i t h a l u l l i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n s e v e r a l p a i r s o f students 40 became i n v o l v e d i n p h a t i c communion, i . e . "a type of speech i n which t i e s of union are c r e a t e d by a mere exchange of words." (Malinowski, 1949, p. 315). For example, some of them began t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h a s k i n g each o t h e r t h e i r names, i n s p i t e o f knowing each o t h e r f o r some time. D i s c u s s i o n s about the weather were common. The use o f these simple w e l l - p r a c t i c e d q u e s t i o n s and answers i s one p o s s i b l e reason why the q u a n t i t y of French v e r s u s E n g l i s h was g r e a t e r d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n . Moreover, w h i l e c o n v e r s i n g , the students c o n c e n t r a t e d on u s i n g communicative s t r a t e g i e s t o f i l l i n t h e i r knowledge gaps. Paraphrasing, r e p e t i t i o n s , r e p a i r s , and c o n f i r m a t i o n checks were used more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n than d u r i n g computer use. However, when working i n f r o n t of the computer, the students d e a l t w i t h u n f a m i l i a r t o p i c s f o r d i s c u s s i o n . Faced w i t h making c h o i c e s from q u e s t i o n s on the screen, they spent some time r e a d i n g , t r y i n g t o l e a r n how the programs worked. Short c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s , w i t h r a i s e d i n t o n a t i o n o f t e n were responded by s i n g l e words. A t y p i c a l example of t h i s from the m u l t i p l e c h o i c e v o c a b u l a r y program f o l l o w s : C: Deux? S: No. C: Oui...um....Quatre. S: Quatre.... oops. C: T r o i s . S: Oh...deux. C: Ah. . . S: Un? C: Oui.... ah ... deux. However, w h i l e i n f r o n t of the computer, r e g a r d l e s s of which program was b e i n g used, the s t u d e n t s were d r i v e n by the d i r e c t e d path of the computer program. P h a t i c communion was i n a p p r o p r i a t e and so never o c c u r r e d . The use of yes/no q u e s t i o n s and answers, i n t e r j e c t i o n s , numbers and the s p e l l i n g of words, o f t e n i n v o l v i n g CS, allowed f o r meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h l i t t l e v o c a b u l a r y , perhaps h e l p i n g t o lower the t o t a l word counts d u r i n g the computer t a s k s . The D i f f e r e n t Types of Codeswitching One o f the more i n t r i g u i n g communicative s t r a t e g i e s t h a t occurs i n the data i s the use of CS. CS o c c u r s every time a speaker switches languages i n s i d e a s i n g l e communicative episode. O c c u r r i n g w i t h i n a sentence o r phrase, the codeswitch i s c a l l e d i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS. An example from the c o n v e r s a t i o n data i s : T: When e s t - c e que t u vas? Quand e s t - c e que t u vas? 42 CS a l s o occurs between d i f f e r e n t sentences o r extended d i s c o u r s e . T h i s i s c a l l e d i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS. An example o f t h i s from the game data i s : W: Pantalon. T: T, A, N.... What happened? W: Qu'est-ce que c ' e s t ? Huh? There are many p o s s i b l e reasons f o r these v a r i a t i o n s i n the CS. While working w i t h the game, many stud e n t s commented on how much they l i k e d i t . During the use of the game they began t o r e l a x and perhaps take the a c t i v i t y a l i t t l e l e s s s e r i o u s l y than the ot h e r t a s k s . As w e l l , under the s t r e s s t o win a g a i n s t the b u i l t - i n time c l o c k o f the computer, the students became emotional, e x c i t e d and f r u s t r a t e d . D i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f language were produced. J : Four, quatre. Quatre? S: Non. J : Oui. S: Non. J : Quatre. S: Wrong! What a r e t a r d ! During the game, s h o r t q u e s t i o n s and responses were p r e v a l e n t . With the s t r e s s o f c o m p e t i t i o n and time l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e a b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n the L2 broke down o f t e n . CS i n t o E n g l i s h o c c u r r e d more f r e q u e n t l y than w i t h the use of the oth e r computer programs or d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . The students then codeswitched back 43 t o French. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the students codeswitched back because they were o r i g i n a l l y asked t o speak French as much as p o s s i b l e by t h e i r t e a c h e r . However, t h i s k i n d o f CS may not be a communicative s t r a t e g y but r a t h e r a s i g n o f l a c k o f c o n t r o l over the maintenance of the L2 when under s t r e s s . Codeswitching as a Communicative S t r a t e g y CS appears t o show f u n c t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n d i s c o u r s e dependent on task, adding a new dimension t o the r e s e a r c h t h a t has o c c u r r e d i n CS. CS can be viewed as a communicative s t r a t e g y which the l e a r n e r may use t o continue speaking without r e s o r t i n g t o a r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g y such as avoidance o r d e l e t i o n o f the t o p i c . T h i s type of LI use Faerch and Kasper (1986) c a l l an L l - b a s e d achievement s t r a t e g y . Under achievement s t r a t e g i e s , they use the l a b e l s s t r a t e g i c t r a n s f e r and automatic t r a n s f e r . C a r e f u l and Casual Speech There appear t o be many reasons f o r the l e a r n e r t o codeswitch. CS appears t o show v a r i a t i o n depending on the t a s k ' s a b i l i t y t o promote c a r e f u l speech compared t o c a s u a l speech. As mentioned e a r l i e r , c a r e f u l speech, l i k e a s t r a t e g i c t r a n s f e r , i n v o l v e s p l a n n i n g of the speech a c t , w i t h frequent pauses f o r thought. Casual 44 speech, l i k e an automatic t r a n s f e r , i n v o l v e s no p l a n n i n g , but r a t h e r spontaneous speech. During c a r e f u l speech, i t appears i n the data t h a t the most obvious and frequent occurrence of CS happens when the speaker l a c k s knowledge of a l e x i c a l nature or has a memory l a p s e . The l e a r n e r o f t e n f i l l s i n the gap w i t h a word or phrase from the L I . Most o f t e n i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS seems t o appear d u r i n g c a r e f u l speech. T h i s type of CS o c c u r r e d f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g the c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k where the l e a r n e r s spoke s l o w l y , sometimes h e s i s t a t i n g w h i l e they thought about what t o say. The f o l l o w i n g samples from the data are p o s s i b l e examples of t h i s : Example 1: C o n v e r s a t i o n R: Uh... t u es a l l e a Vancouver ...afterward? A f t e r l e grad? Example 2: Vocabulary J : Une maison, apartement, e t whatever, plug...une p l u g . Example 3: C o n v e r s a t i o n S: Pourquoi e s t - c e que t u es f a t i g u e ? G: um...j'ai... S: t u n'as... what's sleep? e s t - c e que . . . e s t - c e que...uh...uh...tu ne dorm pas? G: Non. S: Pourquoi? G: J ' a i um...insomnia. Example 4: C o n v e r s a t i o n J : um...et j e v a i s a l l e r a une c l i n i q u e pour...um du saxophone p e u t - e t r e avec mon s c h o l a r s h i p . A l s o d u r i n g c a r e f u l speech, t h e r e sometimes appears t o be a need by l e a r n e r s t o repeat what they have j u s t s a i d i n the L2 by t r a n s l a t i n g i t i n t o the L I . Although the s t r u c t u r e s i n the LI may be a c c u r a t e or c l o s e t o b e i n g comprehensible f o r the i n t e r l o c u t o r , the speaker seems t o show a need t o t r a n s l a t e , perhaps t o r e i n f o r c e what has been s a i d or because of some p e r s o n a l doubt t h a t what s/he i s s a y i n g i s comprehensible. Example 1: C o n v e r s a t i o n S: Qu * e s t - c e que t u danses avec? A: Um...je ne d i s . . . j e ne d i s pas...I'm not s a y i n g . Example 2: C o n v e r s a t i o n S: E s t - c e que t u e t u d i e s pour l e s examens? Did you study f o r your exams? G: Non... Example 3: C o n v e r s a t i o n S: P a r l e z en f r a n g a i s ! C'est une c a s s e t t e r e c o r d e r . . . c ' e s t j o u e r e n . . . i t ' s p l a y i n g . During c a s u a l speech, codeswitches can appear without pauses f o r thought. Learners o f t e n use a codeswitch a t the p o i n t s/he needs t o use an i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e but perhaps l a c k the s t r u c t u r e or v o c a b u l a r y t o do so. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s k i n d of CS occurs because the l e a r n e r s have not been f o r m a l l y taught the means t o modify speech when l a c k i n g u nderstanding. However these switches may be simply examples o f the use of a h i g h l y f r e q u e n t LI item s u r f a c i n g i n the L2. Example 1: Vocabulary program S: Quatre. J : Hmm? S: Quatre. J : Huh? S: Return, r e t u r n . What? What do we do?...Okay. J : Deux. Deux. Example 2: C o n v e r s a t i o n C: E s t - c e que...Qu 1est-ce que... q u 1 e s t - c e que t u es J : What? C: Qu'est-ce que t u es? Example 3: Vocabulary program A: Les what? B: Um...les se r v a n t s ? I t a l s o appears t h a t when doing more s t r e s s f u l t a s k s , c a s u a l speech occurs and students codeswitch more f r e q u e n t l y . Q u i t e o f t e n they use i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS. During the use of the game, the use o f French decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y and CS i n c r e a s e d . T h i s type of CS may be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Labov's l a b e l of c a s u a l speech i n t h a t the CS appears t o happen without p l a n n i n g on the speaker's p a r t . Example 1: Game S: T r o i s ? J : T r o i s ! S: Deux. J : Deux. S: Deux! You p r e s s e d the wrong one! J : I p r e s s e d the wrong one. S: You r e t a r d ! You're making i t wrong. J : S o r r y ! No I d i d n ' t . Um...Quatre? Non, t r o i s . S: Okay, t r o i s . F i n a l l y , some students seem t o codeswitch absent-mindedly o r f o r no apparent reason, perhaps simply because they are r e l a x e d . Example 1: Vocabulary A: So i t ' s t h r e e . . . f o u r ? S: Un...deux...un, un.... A: I have no i d e a . . . j e ne s a i s pas. S: J e ne s a i s pas. Example 2: Vocabulary C: Ooh!...Tapez one pour c o n t i n u e r . C o n c l u s i o n In summary, i n an e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g , CS occurs f o r s e v e r a l p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c reasons. From an e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , CS i s used as a planned o r unplanned achievement s t r a t e g y t o s o l v e a language communication d i f f i c u l t y . Language i n t e r a c t i o n i s i n f l u e n c e d by the t a s k which r e s u l t s i n d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of CS. When CS occurs d u r i n g c a r e f u l speech, the l e a r n e r may do so t o f i l l a knowledge gap, o f t e n u s i n g i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS. The l e a r n e r may a l s o use the LI t o r e i n f o r c e through t r a n s l a t i o n e x a c t l y what has been s a i d i n the L2 i n order t o make c e r t a i n the i n t e r l o c u t o r understands what i s being s a i d . Furthermore, h i g h l y f requent LI items, which are o f t e n i n t e r a c t i o n a l d e v i c e s made a t decision-making p o i n t s , may appear when under s t r e s s o r speaking c a s u a l l y . CHAPTER FOUR Con c l u s i o n s Codeswitching i n the L2 classroom i s a phenomenon t h a t w i t h few e x c e p t i o n s has been ignored by e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s and t e a c h e r s a l i k e . Yet CS i s used r e g u l a r l y amongst non-native speakers of a L2, e s p e c i a l l y those w i t h l i m i t e d p r o f i c i e n c y . L i n g u i s t s have c o n s i d e r e d CS i n t r i g u i n g i n t h e i r s e arch f o r commonalities between languages and the l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n d i s c o u r s e t h a t the switches occur. S o c i o l i n g u i s t s have s t u d i e d the reasons f o r CS, a t t r i b u t i n g t h e switches t o the s o c i e t a l needs of the speaker. From an e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , CS amongst p r o f i c i e n t b i l i n g u a l s has been s t u d i e d but l i t t l e , i f anything, has been done wi t h CS and the LP l e a r n e r . Research I m p l i c a t i o n s The reasons f o r the d i s r e g a r d of CS as an important phenomenon i n SLA can o n l y be surmised a t t h i s p o i n t . Perhaps t h i s i s due t o the importance t h a t has been p l a c e d on t e a c h i n g the L2 i n the L2 and the l i t t l e purpose t h a t has been a t t r i b u t e d t o the use of the LI i n SLA. Yet the r e g u l a r occurrence of CS may be a c l u e t o h e l p i n g t o e x p l a i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s of SLA. Another aspect t h a t i s absent from the CS r e s e a r c h i s a n y t h i n g on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t a s k and CS. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h i s study agrees w i t h many r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t t a s k has an impact on language v a r i a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e CS s t u d i e s need t o r e g a r d t a s k as an i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r on the type of CS t h a t o c c u r s . I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS seems t o occur more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g c a s u a l speech. Although not as c o n c l u s i v e from t h i s study, i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS may appear more f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t a s k s which a l l o w f o r time t o p l a n and communicate the s t r a t e g y , as i n c a r e f u l speech. These a s p e c t s of CS add new areas f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n the study of CS and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o SLA. Pedagogical I m p l i c a t i o n s CS has most o f t e n been viewed as an e r r o r i n L2 performance by t e a c h e r s . However, through the a n a l y s i s of the CS done on the d i f f e r e n t t a s k s i n t h i s study, not a l l codeswitches can be a t t r i b u t e d t o the l e a r n e r g i v i n g up and r e s o r t i n g t o LI use. More o f t e n , the codeswitch t o LI i s used t o improve communication i n the L2. T h e r e f o r e , L2 t e a c h e r s should perhaps r e c o n s i d e r the r o l e of CS and develop a p o s i t i v e p o l i c y f o r i t s use, e s p e c i a l l y amongst LP l e a r n e r s . Q u i t e p o s s i b l y the l e a r n e r would b e n e f i t from b e i n g allowed and encouraged to take risks and practice his/her attempts in L2 production. This study has been conducted with an emphasis on interaction in dialogue. In so doing, some factors that may have influence over the CS have been ignored. During the use of the computer, much of the students' time was spent reading and writing text. These areas have not been analyzed in this study but may be worthy of examination to give us further clues to understanding SLA. Recommendations for Computers in the FSL Classroom One of the fears that many teachers have i s that the computer cannot analyze creative language and therefore cannnot help in SLA. However, i f the teacher's perspective changes from perceiving the computer as an instructor to viewing i t as a tool for students, then using the computer to enhance communicative interaction and SLA i s possible. In order to use the computer effectively in the L2 classroom, grouping of students i s essential. Otherwise, l i t t l e or no negotiation w i l l occur, essential for SLA. According to Long & Porter (1985), in order to obtain the most practice in negotiation, students should be put in pairs of mixed language p r o f i c i e n c i e s and i f p o s s i b l e , mixed language backgrounds. I n t h e FSL c l a s s r o o m where t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t u d e n t s have a s i m i l a r L I , t h e n t h e p a i r s s h o u l d be pu t t o g e t h e r a c c o r d i n g t o d i s s i m i l a r p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . The use o f t h e computer as a t o o l f o r SLA i s a r e l a t i v e l y new i d e a and because o f i t s r e c e n t appearance, L2 t e a c h e r s have much t o l e a r n about how t o use i t e f f e c t i v e l y . Many o f t h e computers on t h e market t o d a y have tremendous power and memory, a l l o w i n g f o r many more a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a n even a few y e a r s ago. S o f t w a r e i s c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g w r i t t e n and updated. T h e r e f o r e , computer hardware and s o f t w a r e p u r c h a s e s s h o u l d be made c a r e f u l l y w i t h f l e x i b i l i t y i n mind. S i n g l e p i e c e s o f s o f t w a r e t h a t match c u r r i c u l u m y e t do no t a l l o w f o r t a s k m o d i f i c a t i o n a r e not always t h e b e s t p u r c h a s e s . B e t t e r p u r c h a s e s would i n c l u d e programs t h a t a l l o w f o r a v a r i e t y o f t a s k s . Such programs would i n c l u d e d a t a b a s e s , s p r e a d s h e e t s , and w o r d p r o c e s s i n g programs because t h e y can a l l be used r e p e a t e d l y w i t h t h e f l e x i b i l i t y t o m o d i f y t h e t a s k a c c o r d i n g t o t h e needs o f t h e s t u d e n t s . The t a s k and s o f t w a r e have an impact on t h e s t u d e n t s ' language p r o d u c t i o n as w e l l . Most o f t h e 52 d r i l l and practice type of programs are imitations of workbooks and therefore seem more appropriate for individual use rather than group work. However, depending on the teacher's demands of the task, the use of a computer program can be placed in a series of multiple language tasks involving reading, writing and oral work and hence become a tremendous motivator for language development. An example of this would be an adventure simulation game where students would be given the task of keeping a log book of their travels and using the wordprocessor, write up a summary of the t r i p . Using a database program, students could gather information on their t r i p , classify i t into appropriate categories and use i t to produce a travel brochure. Graphics could be applied with a graphics program. Hence, the computer becomes a work station to do multiple tasks, much like what would be used in industry. Students should gain a greater amount of input and interaction when using the computer under the following conditions: Guidelines for Computer Use in L2 Classrooms 1. Groupwork - Essentially, students should work in pairs at the computer, matched for sex and age. However they s h o u l d be from d i s s i m i l a r language backgrounds o r p r o f i c i e n c e s f o r maximum i n t e r a c t i o n . 2. Software - The c h o i c e o f software u l t i m a t e l y depends on the t e a c h e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , software t h a t i s not language software i s o f t e n b e t t e r a t promoting language i n t e r a c t i o n than programs w r i t t e n t o match c u r r i c u l u m and t e x t s . General use software as i n wordprocessing, database, spreadsheets and s i m u l a t i o n games are examples of t h i s . D r i l l and p r a c t i c e language software may be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s i n g l e student use i n the l i b r a r y o r a t home. Such programs do not promote language i n t e r a c t i o n y e t may be b e n e f i c i a l i n improving s p e l l i n g and grammar s k i l l s . 3. Language I n t e r a c t i o n a l Tasks - Students need t o be g i v e n a t a s k o r s e r i e s o f t a s k s t h a t i n v o l v e the n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning and where the computer becomes the necessary t o o l t o complete the t a s k . N e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning i s fun and promotes language a c q u i s i t i o n . C o n c l u s i o n Software aimed f o r the L 2 classroom must be chosen j u d i c i o u s l y w i t h language i n t e r a c t i o n i n mind. Whatever the t a s k may be, a software program b e i n g used o r c o n v e r s a t i o n b e i n g p r a c t i c e d , the f a c i l i t a t i o n o f SLA i s dependent on the requirements o f the t a s k a t hand as 54 w e l l as the grouping o f stu d e n t s . In some cases, i t may be t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n i s more a p p r o p r i a t e and f a c i l i t a t i v e i n SLA compared t o computer use i n the L2 classroom. References A t k i n s o n , David. (1987). The mother tongue i n the classroom: a n e g l e c t e d resource? ELT J o u r n a l . 41(4). B e r k - S e l i g s o n , Susan. (1986). L i n g u i s t i c c o n s t r a i n t s on i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l c ode-switching; A study of Spanish/Hebrew b i l i n g u a l i s m . Language i n S o c i e t y . 15, 313-348. Canale, M i c h a e l , e t a l . (1985) Microcomputer Software  f o r Language A r t s : Survey and A n a l v s i s . Informal S e r i e s / 6 3 . Toronto: The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n . Clyne, M. (1987). C o n s t r a i n t s on code s w i t c h i n g : How u n i v e r s a l are they? L i n g u i s t i c s . 25, 739-764. Dabene, L o u i s e & B i l l i e z , J a c q u e l i n e . (1986). Code-s w i t c h i n g i n the speech of a d o l e s c e n t s born of immigrant p a r e n t s . S t u d i e s i n Second Language  A c q u i s i t i o n . 8, 309-325. E l l i s , Rod. (1986). Understanding second language  a c g u i s i t i o n . Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Faerch, C l a u s . (1984). Learner language and language  l e a r n i n g . Clevedon, Avon, England: M u l t i l i n g u a l M a tters L t d . Faerch, Claus & Kasper, G a b r i e l e . eds.(1983). S t r a t e g i e s i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e communication. Harlow: Longman. Faerch, Claus & Kasper, G a b r i e l e . (1986). C o g n i t i v e dimensions o f language t r a n s f e r , i n E. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), C r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c  i n f l u e n c e i n second language a c g u i s i t i o n (pp. 49-65) Oxford: Pergamon. H e l l e r , Monica. (1988). Codeswitching: a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l  and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e s . B e r l i n : Walter de G r u y t e r & Co. 56 Krashen, Stephen. (1988). Second language a c q u i s i t i o n  and second language l e a r n i n g . (Language t e a c h i n g methodology s e r i e s ) . New York: P r e n t i c e H a l l . Krashen, Stephen. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues  and I m p l i c a t i o n s . London: Longman. Labov, W i l l i a m . (1966). The s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f  E n g l i s h i n New York C i t y . Washington Center f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . L i p s k i , John. (1985). L i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t s of Spanish-E n g l i s h language s w i t c h i n g . A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Long, M i c h a e l , & P o r t e r , P a t r i c i a . (1985). Group work, i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k , and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . T e s o l Q u a r t e r l y . 19, 207-228. Malinowski, B. (1949). i n C. K. Ogden & I. A. R i c h a r d s , The meaning of meaning. London. Routledge and P a u l . 296-336. Mohan, Bernard. (198 6). Interlanguage and the computer. JALT J o u r n a l . 7(2), 157-169. Poplack, S. (1980). "Sometimes I ' l l s t a r t a sentence i n Spanish y termino en espanol"; Toward a t y p o l o g y o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g . L i n g u i s t i c s . 18, 581-618. Poplack, S. (1982). B i l i n g u a l i s m and the v e r n a c u l a r . In B. H a r t f o r d , A. Valdman, & C. F o s t e r , Issues i n  i n t e r n a t i o n a l b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n : the r o l e of the  v e r n a c u l a r , (pp. 1-23). New York: Plenum Press. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication s t r a t e g i e s , f o r e i g n e r t a l k and r e p a i r i n i n t e r l a n g u a g e . Language  L e a r n i n g . 30: 417-431. Underwood, J . (1984). L i n g u i s t i c s , computers and the  language t e a c h e r : a communicative approach. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. W i l k i n s o n , L. (1989). SYSTAT: The system f o r s t a t i s t i c s . Evanston, I l l i n o i s : SYSTAT, Inc. 57 Appendix Word counts were accomplished by u s i n g M i c r o s o f t Word. C o n t r a c t i o n s such as e s t - c e , j'aime, or i n E n g l i s h , don't, c'mon, e t c . were t h e r e a f t e r counted and added i n as two separate words. Words such as oh and no(n) depended on the co n t e x t they were used; i . e . they were counted as French i f surrounded by o t h e r French words, otherwise they were counted as E n g l i s h . Laughter, l e t t e r s s p e l l e d out, and sounds l i k e ummm, uh, aw, mmm, ooh, were d e l e t e d from the counts. Proper nouns were counted as the language surrounding them. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078260/manifest

Comment

Related Items