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

IN  COMMUNICATIVE COMPUTER USE FRENCH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING by DIANE ALEXANDRA TIJMAN  B.A., U n i v e r s i t y  of British  Columbia,  1976  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Department o f Language We a c c e p t  this  thesis  the required  THE  Education  as conforming standard  UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  J u n e 1990 ©  Diane Alexandra  to  Tijman  1990  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia, I agree that the  available for  copying  of  department publication  this or of  reference  thesis by  this  his thesis  permission.  Department The University of Britii Vancouver, Canada  DE-6  (2/88)  for  and study. scholarly  or for  her  of  I further  purposes  gain  requirements  agree  may  representatives.  financial  the  It  shall not  be is  that  an  advanced  Library shall make  permission for  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  the that  without  it  extensive  head  of  my  copying  or  my  written  Abstract  Many s e c o n d l a n g u a g e  (L2) t e a c h e r s a r e c o n c e r n e d  the  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m and q u e s t i o n  use o f computers  about the  v a l u e o f u s i n g them i f t h e y do n o t p r o m o t e m e a n i n g f u l interaction.  R e s e a r c h p e r f o r m e d on F r e n c h a s a  Language  (FSL) s t u d e n t s * l a n g u a g e  computer  a g r e e s w i t h Mohan's  as a Second which  Language s t u d e n t s ' l a n g u a g e  Secondly, a n a l y s i s  CS  of the codeswitching  shows f u n c t i o n a l  d i s c o u r s e d u r i n g computer T h i s s t u d y examines facilitate CS  suggests that  variation  u s e compared t o  i n second language  as w e l l  to  as t h e p o s s i b l e  acquisition.  in  conversation.  t h e use o f t h e computer  interaction  of  t a s k s compared t o  (CS) o f t h e F S L s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r a c t i o n intersentential  English  interaction  and q u a l i t y  i s l o w e r d u r i n g computer  conversation.  at the  (1986) r e s e a r c h on  suggests that the quantity  interaction  interaction  Second  role  of  Acknowledgement F o r t h e 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 w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k my a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e : S t u a r t Donn, A d e l S a f t y and e s p e c i a l l y B e r n a r d Mohan who a s my p r i n c i p a l a d v i s o r was a n i n s p i r a t i o n a s t e a c h e r and mentor. As w e l l , I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k Richmond S c h o o l D i s t r i c t #34 f o r a l l o w i n g me t o p e r f o r m t h i s s t u d y a s w e l l a s t h e e i g h t e e n s t u d e n t s who v o l u n t e e r e d t o participate. U n d o u b t e d l y t h i s t h e s i s may h a v e n e v e r b e e n c o m p l e t e d w i t h o u t t h e p a t i e n c e , t i m e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f my h u s b a n d , B r i a n , my s o n , B r e n d o n , and my m o t h e r , 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 d a u g h t e r , H e a t h e r , whose imminent b i r t h was t h e i m p e t u s t o c o m p l e t e t h e t h e s i s on t i m e .  iv Table  o f Contents  Abstract  i i  Acknowledgement Table List  i i i  o f Contents  iv  of Tables  v i  CHAPTER ONE: I n t r o d u c t i o n  1  CHAPTER TWO:  6  Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e  Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n T h e o r y  6  Computer A s s i s t e d Language L e a r n i n g  8  Codeswitching  9  The  Linguistic  Perspective  The  Sociolinguistic  The  Educational  10  Perspective  12  Perspective  12  Codeswitching  as a Communicative S t r a t e g y  14  Codeswitching  a n d 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 t h e D a t a . 19 Subjects  19  Design  19  and P r o c e d u r e  Description  of t h e Tasks  20  Language V a r i a t i o n  21  Analyses  23  Results  23  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 English Table  2: P e r c e n t a g e o f F r e n c h  i n French  and 25  Used  27  T a b l e 3: R a t i o o f C o m p r e h e n s 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 O v e r 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 Total Oral Production  Over 30  Codeswitching  33  T a b l e 5: R a t i o o f C o d e s w i t c h i n g Production  Over T o t a l  Oral 36  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 Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n  Codeswitching  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 Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n  Codeswitching  37 39  C o n c l u s i o n s on t h e D a t a  40  Discussion  40  The D i f f e r e n t T y p e s o f C o d e s w i t c h i n g  42  Codeswitching  43  Careful  as a Communicative  and C a s u a l  Strategy  Speech  43  Conclusion  47  CHAPTER FOUR: C o n c l u s i o n s Research  48  Implications  Pedagogical  48  Implications  49  Recommendations f o r C o m m u n i c a t i v e t h e FSL Classroom Guidelines Conclusion References: Appendix:  f o r Computer Use  Computer U s e i n 50  i n L2 C l a s s r o o m s  .. 52 53 • • • • 55 57  vi List  of Tables  Table  1:  Table  2: P e r c e n t a g e  Table  3: R a t i o o f C o m p r e h e n s i o n C h e c k s 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 .  Table Table Table Table  4:  T o t a l O r a l Production i n French and E n g l i s h  25  o f French Used  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 Total Oral Production  5: R a t i o o f C o d e s w i t c h i n g Production  Over T o t a l  27 29  Over 30 Oral 33  6: R a t i o o f I n t r a s e n t e n t i a l C o d e s w i t c h i n g Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n  37  7: R a t i o o f I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l C o d e s w i t c h i n g Over T o t a l O r a l P r o d u c t i o n  39  1  CHAPTER Communicative  ONE  Computer Use  Second  Language  i n F r e n c h as a  Learning  Introduction During the l a s t  decade,  second language  t e a c h e r s h a v e become i n t r i g u e d d i f f e r e n t movements. F i r s t  and a f f e c t e d  (L2) by  of a l l , Krashen's  on s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n  two  theories  (SLA) h a v e c o n v i n c e d  most L2 t e a c h e r s t h a t t o a c q u i r e a l a n g u a g e , one have  comprehensible i n p u t t o a c h i e v e communicative  competence.  F u r t h e r m o r e , most t e a c h e r s w o u l d  agree  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i n p u t must o c c u r and t h a t be m e a n i n g f u l i n o r d e r The interest  f o r t h e L2 t o be  i n CALL, The  microcomputers  (computer a s s i s t e d  rapid  i t must  recent  language  i n c r e a s e and a v a i l a b i l i t y  of  i n t h e s c h o o l s and t h e p a r e n t a l  and e x p e c t a t i o n s  f o r t h e use o f computers  demands  i n the  c l a s s r o o m h a v e p u t p r e s s u r e on t e a c h e r s t o u s e t h e m a j o r i t y o f s o f t w a r e programs the current  communicative  F o r t h e most p a r t ,  programs portray  emphasis  h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n by n o n - s p e c i a l i s t s language l e a r n i n g  them.  available  L2 t e a c h e r do n o t r e f l e c t competence.  that  internalized.  s e c o n d o f t h e s e movements i s t h e  learning).  Yet  must  f o r the on  the and  i n t h e form o f b e h a v i o u r i s t  2  pattern d r i l l s .  Because o f t h i s ,  CALL h a v e e x p r e s s e d assist  several  c r i t i c s of  t h e i d e a t h a t t h e computer c a n  i n t h e development o f l i n g u i s t i c  t h e L2 y e t c a n do v e r y l i t t l e  competence o f  t o develop  communicative  c o m p e t e n c e . Many t e a c h e r s a r e q u e s t i o n n i n g t h e v a l u e o f u s i n g a c o m p u t e r when t h e s o f t w a r e p r o g r a m s do n o t reflect  t h e 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 present technology  i s n o t a d v a n c e d enough f o r t h e  computer t o a n a l y z e c r e a t i v e , m e a n i n g f u l  interaction,  t e a c h e r s a r e f a c e d w i t h t h e dilemma o f how t h e c o m p u t e r c a n be u s e d  i n t h e L2 c l a s s r o o m e f f e c t i v e l y  in  acquisition.  language  This study w i l l CALL. I n s o d o i n g , interaction that Language that  examine t h e communicative u s e o f  i tw i l l  analyze the  o c c u r s amongst F r e n c h  as a Second  be compared t o t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n  t h e computer. A d i f f e r e n t  previous studies w i l l that the focus w i l l  be t a k e n  on t h e c o m p u t e r ' s a b i l i t y  encouraging done t h r o u g h  peer  approach  i n this  from  most  s t u d y o f CALL i n  n o t be on a n a l y z i n g t h e s u c c e s s o f  t h e computer as an i n s t r u c t o r . be  language  (FSL) h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s a t t h e c o m p u t e r and  interaction will  away f r o m  as a t o o l  interaction  the grouping  Rather,  the focus  will  t o become t h e medium f o r i n t h e L2. T h i s w i l l  be  of students i n p a i r s a t the  3  c o m p u t e r and  a s k i n g them t o s p e a k t o e a c h  other i n  F r e n c h w h i l e u s i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t programs. I t i s hoped that through encouraging will  be  this  study the best s t i m u l i  for  c o m m u n i c a t i v e L2 u s e when a t t h e  computer  determined.  Furthermore,  when a n a l y z i n g t h e d e t e r m i n e r s  what p r o m o t e s SLA, quantity  and  i t i s important  quality  of i n t e r a c t i o n  to look at  of  the  i n the L2.  Since  t h e q u a n t i t y o f L2 t a l k d i m i n i s h e s w i t h t h e i n c r e a s e d use  of the  first  desirable that  language  L2  flow of thought  learners t r y to maintain a  i n the L2. Yet,  limited proficiency use  t h e L I and  pairs.  will CS  be  purposes  i t i s possible  i t w i t h t h e L2 when w o r k i n g  will  in  switching i s called study,  f o r v a r i o u s reasons.  bilinguals,  such  as  i t may  t h e r o l e o f CS  in  For instance, with  occur f o r s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c  i n a work s e t t i n g where t h e  according to the s i t u a t i o n  s p e a k i n g . However, w i t h LP  individual  o r t o whom  l e a r n e r s the  t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t . The  s/he  codeswitch  i n d i c a t e s a lack of necessary vocabulary  complete  that  examined.  codeswitches  often  constant  l e a r n e r s w i t h t h e same LI  (CS). In t h i s  occurs  proficient  is  mix  (LP)  T h i s type of language  codeswitching SLA  ( L I ) , i t i s c o n s i d e r e d more  codeswitch  to occurs  4  where t h e l a n g u a g e gap n e e d s t o b e f i l l e d . other  educational  proficiency  r e a s o n s f o r CS amongst l i m i t e d  (LFP) l e a r n e r s i n t o w h i c h t h i s  e x a m i n e . I n s p i t e o f much r e s e a r c h CS f r o m a s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c perspective, research use  having  as w e l l as  codewitching  i s problematic this  study,  codeswitches as w e l l  stimulate  b e e n done on  where  interferes,  a n d n e e d s t o be  then  researched.  c o u n t s on t h e number o f kinds  o f CS f r o m  be examined t o d e t e r m i n e which  t h e g r e a t e s t u s e o f t h e L2 i n a  meaningful communicative The  will  i t would n o t appear t h a t t h e  as d i f f e r e n t  French t o E n g l i s h w i l l  French  linguistic  o f t h e L I i m p r o v e s SLA b u t o f t e n  situations  study  CS among LP l e a r n e r s i s a n a r e a  i s lacking. Since  Within  There a r e  way.  f o l l o w i n g hypotheses a r e proposed:  1.  Quantity  2.  Q u a l i t y o f t a l k v a r i e s among  3.  Quantity  o f F r e n c h v a r i e s among  4.  Quantity  o f CS v a r i e s among  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 a n d  intrasententially Finally,  o f t a l k v a r i e s among  among  tasks. tasks. tasks.  tasks.  tasks.  recommendations w i l l  b e made f o r t h e u s e  o f c o m p u t e r s a n d l a n g u a g e s o f t w a r e i n t h e L2 c l a s s r o o m . With t h i s  information,  teachers  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  may  5  make b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s  on the purchase of computer  hardware and software  and the use of the computer as a  tool  i n f a c i l i t a t i n g SLA i n the  future.  6  CHAPTER  TWO  Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e Second  Language A c q u i s i t i o n When e x a m i n i n g  SLA,  Theory  the role  o f t h e computer i n  one must t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n  theoretical theories  assumptions  are currently  about  some  SLA. T h e f o l l o w i n g  a c c e p t e d b y most L2  teachers. A c c o r d i n g t o Krashen's "humans a c q u i r e l a n g u a g e s  Input Hypothesis,  i n o n l y one way - b y  u n d e r s t a n d i n g messages, o r by r e c e i v i n g input" L2 use to  'comprehensible  ( p . 2 ) . As w e l l he q u e s t i o n s t h e v a l u e o f f o r m a l  instruction  at a l l .  T h e r e f o r e , when l o o k i n g a t t h e  o f t h e computer as a t o o l  i n SLA, what i s i m p o r t a n t  l o o k f o r i s t h e computer's a b i l i t y  comprehensible  t o promote  input r a t h e r than teach t h e language.  S i n c e a c c o r d i n g t o Krashen, one  (1985),  comprehensible  input i s  o f t h e k e y s t o SLA, t h e n t h e q u a n t i t y o f  comprehensible  input a v a i l a b l e t o the student i s  critical.  (1985) h a s a d d e d t o t h i s n e c e s s i t y t h e  quality  Long  o f comprehensible  requirement  f o r SLA. He e m p h a s i z e s  experience learning the  i n p u t as b e i n g that  situations requiring  i n p u t . He s t a t e s t h a t  another s t u d e n t s must negotiation of  " l e a r n e r s must b e p u t i n a  7  position  of being  original)  able t o negotiate  the input thereby  language which i s heard level  i s modified  o f c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y they  Porter,  that the level of to exactly to the  c a n manage" (Long &  1985, p . 2 1 4 ) . T h i s means t h a t t h e s t u d e n t  does n o t understand reach  ensuring  (emphasis i n  t h e message w i l l  f u r t h e r understanding.  r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p a i r s , clarification interaction possible.  requests  who  i m p l e m e n t means t o  S u c h means i n c l u d e  comprehension checks and  i n conversation.  The q u a l i t y o f  i s a f f e c t e d when s u c h n e g o t i a t i o n i s n o t  T h i s o c c u r s when s t u d e n t s  t r yto learn 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 to  f u r t h e r concern  best provide  comprehensible  f o r t h e language t e a c h e r  students  with  i s how  the opportunity f o r  i n p u t . Many r e s e a r c h e r s  argue t h a t  group  work m a x i m i z e s t h e maximum amount o f l a n g u a g e interaction  i n the classroom.  reviewed research native  speakers  Long a n d P o r t e r  (1985)  s t u d i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n s between non-  (NNS). T h e y f o u n d  interactions provided  t h a t NNS/NNS  more l a n g u a g e 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 speakers  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  and non-native  speakers.  Hence, when  students  8  work i n p a i r s ,  oral  i n t e r a c t i o n a t t h e computer  becomes  u s e t h e n becomes a p o s i t i v e ,  natural  possible.  Computer  situation  f o r input,  This  n e g o t i a t i o n and  i s the t h e o r e t i c a l  SLA.  b a s e upon w h i c h t h i s  study  h a s b e e n c o n d u c t e d . 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 and  writing  skills  f u r t h e r study  Computer  b e i n g u s e d . They a r e a r e a s worthy o f  i n order to f u l l y  computer's r o l e  reading  understand the  i n SLA.  Assisted  Language  Learning  A l t h o u g h computer a s s i s t e d  language l e a r n i n g  (CALL) h a s b e e n i n u s e i n L2 c l a s s r o o m s f o r n e a r l y 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  some i n t e r e s t  shown i n u s i n g t h e c o m p u t e r  c o m m u n i c a t i v e way.  computer and  drill  a p p r o p r i a t e a t some t i m e s ,  is  U s i n g t h e computer  a relatively  computer  teaching,  practicing  a g i v e n language concept. Although the  and p r a c t i c e v a r i e t y  quickly.  programs  and p r a c t i c e t y p e where t h e  imitates the instructor,  testing  been  in a  Much o f t h e CALL s o f t w a r e  has been o f t h e t h e d r i l l  a  new  way  o f p r o g r a m s may  be  they tend t o lead  to  boredom  i n a c o m m u n i c a t i v e manner  t o p e r c e i v e t h e use o f the  i n t h e L2 c l a s s r o o m . C a n a l e and B a r k e r  s t r e s s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f u s i n g computer programs  (1985) that  9  have a h i g h l y  i n t e g r a t i v e rather than  f o c u s . They s u g g e s t t h a t give p r i o r i t y  t o the t o o l  "language and  discrete-point  educators  t u t e e uses  rather than the t u t o r uses."  of  and  other software not  intended  f o r language  out t h a t  one  may  be  o f the advantages  of conversation that i n front  t h a n u s i n g a program e x p l i c i t l y  t e a c h the language,  (1984) p o i n t s  o f u s i n g such  between s t u d e n t s w h i l e working Rather  problem-  necessarily  l e a r n i n g . Underwood  the side e f f e c t  software  (p.19) S u c h p r o g r a m s w o u l d  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, solving tools,  t h e use  should  software occurs  of the screen. designed  o f t h e s o f t w a r e and  c o m p u t e r t h e n become t h e medium f o r  to the  language  interaction. Codeswitching  (CS)  O v e r t h e y e a r s i n t h e s t u d y o f SLA, has been p a i d t o language b e i n g CS,  "the use  variation,  o f more t h a n one  c o u r s e o f a s i n g l e communicative 1988,  one  form  of i t  episode." why  i n the (Heller, L2  r e s e a r c h e r s have a n a l y z e d  d i s c o u r s e so as t o d e t e r m i n e For a large part,  attention  language  p . l ) In order t o b e t t e r understand  l e a r n e r s codeswitch,  much  consistencies within  t h e s e a n a l y s e s h a v e b e e n done  CS.  from  10  three and  perspectives: the l i n g u i s t i c ,  the educational  The L i n g u i s t i c  sociolinguistic,  perspectives.  Perspective  From t h e 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 research universal  h a s b e e n done on t r y i n g grammar. I n s o d o i n g ,  studied with  special  Most o f t h e a n a l y s e s differences  t o determine a d i s c o u r s e has been  e m p h a s i s on t h e l o c a t i o n o f CS. have c o n c e n t r a t e d  i n the intrasentential  on t h e  versus  intersentential  CS.  codeswitch with  a s i n g l e sentence, phrase,  s i n g l e word. utterance  I n t r a s e n t e n t i a l CS  involves a  I n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS o c c u r s  with  or with  a  an  o r e x t e n d e d 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 h a v e b e e n p r o p o s e d . First there  of a l l ,  t h e s t u d i e s o f CS h a v e shown t h a t  are s i m i l a r i t i e s  commonly h e l d t h e o r y  between  t h a t CS t e n d s t o o c c u r  l a n g u a g e s match s y n t a c t i c a l l y 1987; P o p l a c k ;  l a n g u a g e s . T h e r e i s one  (Clyne,  1987;  1982). T h i s has been c a l l e d  where  Lipski, 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 , t h e of-constituent Generally  constraint i s considered  speaking,  two  size-  a f a c t o r i n CS.  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 s e n t e n c e s and c l a u s e s f r e q u e n t l y t h a n one-word  are switched  categories, the  more  exception  11  b e i n g nouns  ( P o p l a c k , 1980).  Furthermore,  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 of an advanced  bilingual  Berk-Seligson theories  (Lipski,  CS  to being a  1987; P o p l a c k ,  sign 1982).  (1986) however, p u t s most o f t h e s e  i n t o d i s p u t e . I n h e r s t u d y on S p a n i s h - H e b r e w  CS amongst S p a n i s h s p e a k i n g b i l i n g u a l Jerusalem,  inhabitants of  she found e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e 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  bilinguals  often producing sentences  codeswitched,  were u n g r a m m a t i c a l found  language.  that the size-of-constituent  factor  i n t h e CS b e c a u s e  favored  intrasentential  intersentential well,  Portuguese,  Billiez  switching, rather  not a  than As  not r e l a t e d t o the  In a d i f f e r e n t  s t u d y done on  and A l g e r i a n s i n F r a n c e by Dabene  (1986), t h e y a l s o c o n f i r m e d t h e l a c k o f a of bilingualism.  i s e v i d e n t t h a t much more r e s e a r c h n e e d s 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 Moreover, considered SLA.  she  c o n s t r a i n t was  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n CS and t h e d e g r e e It  that  s w i t c h i n g , u n l i k e most CS s t u d i e s .  of bilingualism.  Spanish,  Secondly,  The  t h e Spanish/Hebrew b i l i n g u a l s  s h e f o u n d t h a t t h e CS was  degree  and  in either  i n t h e CS.  f a c t o r s other than l i n g u i s t i c i n order t o understand  languages. o n e s must  be  t h e r o l e o f CS i n  12  The  Sociolinquistic The  Perspective  researchers  of view s t r e s s the  occupation,  be  The  setting  i n t e r l o c u t o r s ' age, t o p i c and  sex,  g r o u p and  of of  the  and  purpose of  status of a minority  point  the  language i n a  i t s d i s a p p e a r a n c e o r growth a l s o  instance,  an  individual  codeswitch to  facilitate  to define the  social  so d o i n g ,  s/he  i n order  may  Therefore,  CS  d e p e n d i n g on  reject  the  one  situation  and  as w e l l  as  language  t h a t s/he  f o r the  From an  situation.  interlocutors that being  i n a l a n g u a g e one  the  a solution  lacks  r e s e a r c h has especially  Perspective  educational b e e n done on  t h a t o f LP  perspective, very the  of  perceives  knowledge. Educational  In  a factor that varies  r a t h e r than simply  t o a c o m m u n i c a t i o n gap  to  interaction.  conventional  appropriate  i s seen h e r e as  speaker encounters,  choose  communication but  to perform a r o l e ,  the  may  boundaries of the  or society perceives  The  can  a factor. For  use  function  i n t o account the  as w e l l as t h e  interaction. majority  the  sociolinguistic  importance of the  language. They t a k e conversation,  t a k i n g the  CS  o f L2  little  learners,  l e a r n e r s . Most o f t h e  studies  13  have l o o k e d  at the discourse of balanced  most o f whom were o f S p a n i s h United A in  the  origin  few L2  s t u d i e s have l o o k e d classroom.  Atkinson of the  a t t h e CS  i n the  translation ambiguity  instructors  He  that  s h o u l d be  f i v e percent  t o n g u e f o r optimum i n s t r u c t i o n . used t o e l i c i t  of  (1987) s u g g e s t s  instruction  i n the t a r g e t language, with  o c c u r w i t h the use  or explanations  suggests  the  i n t h e L2.  L I c a n be u s e d t o c h e c k  instructions,  l a n g u a g e , and  test,  present  and  mother  that the  LI  the  f o r a g i v e n word i n o r d e r t o a v o i d  t h a t may  done  i n the  suggests  t h e L2 when r e q u e s t i n g  gestures  give  living  States.  n i n e t y - f i v e percent  be  bilinguals,  of  any  visuals,  As w e l l ,  he  comprehension, reinforce  d i s c u s s language methodology  with  students. I n FSL student u s e s CS.  classrooms  a t t e m p t s t o communicate Teachers  i d e a s such  CS  i s a n e c e s s i t y and little  as  a l s o use  of  very  in British  C o l u m b i a , when a  i n French,  i t t o improve  s/he  often  communication  i n t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f grammar p o i n t s . a reality  a t t e n t i o n has  i s more o f t e n d i s c o u r a g e d p e r c e i v e d by most t e a c h e r s  f o r the  learner, yet  been g i v e n t o i t . In f a c t , i t because the use a s an  of E n g l i s h i s  interfering  factor  in  French a c q u i s i t i o n . Perhaps t h i s research  explains  on CS h a s o c c u r r e d w i t h i n  why  so  little  the realm of  education. C o d e s w i t c h i n g as a Communicative A few e d u c a t i o n a l linguistics  1980;  researchers  have d e s c r i b e d  communicative  Strategy  strategy  interested i n  CS a s a n example o f a  ( E l l i s , 1986;  F a e r c h and  T a r o n e , 1 9 8 0 ) . Upon f a c i n g d i f f i c u l t y  speech p r o d u c t i o n or r e c e p t i o n , various  communicative  the learner  strategies  Kasper,  i n L2 may t r y  or problem-solving  d e v i c e s t o g e t t h e message a c r o s s t o t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r . Reduction s t r a t e g i e s  and a c h i e v e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s  means w h i c h t h e l e a r n e r Reduction strategies communication problem  may  discussed  in this  They w i l l  discourse.  and a s w e l l  Achievement  paraphrasing,  or  n o t be a n a l y z e d  attempts t o  or  us  improve  are d i f f i c u l t t o determine i n  strategies  restructuring  include  and L I - and  (interlanguage) based s t r a t e g i e s or borrowing),  o r abandoning t h e  s t u d y b e c a u s e t h e y do n o t t e l l  a n y t h i n g about the l e a r n e r ' s communication  avoiding  i . e . dropping the t o p i c  from c o n v e r s a t i o n .  two  u s e t o communicate.  include  difficulty,  are  substitution,  L3-  s u c h a s CS  (transfer  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 .  Included under achievement s t r a t e g i e s  are  non-  15  linguistic  s t r a t e g i e s s u c h a s mime o r g e s t u r e ,  cooperative  s t r a t e g i e s such as d i r e c t l y  interlocutor Ll-based  by  or explanation.  asking the  W i t h LP l e a r n e r s ,  a c h i e v e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s s u c h a s CS a r e  extensively variety  f o r help  and  u s e d w h e r e a s a t more a d v a n c e d l e v e l s ,  a  o f communicative s t r a t e g i e s a r e t y p i c a l l y  learners Ellis  learner  (Faerch (1986),  and Kasper,  prefer reduction  1983, p . 1 6 4 ) .  i n h i s synopsis  strategies, states that  used  of the research  i n general  strategies or Ll-based  on  LP l e a r n e r s  achievement  s t r a t e g i e s w h i l e t h e more a d v a n c e d l e a r n e r s p r e f e r L 2 b a s e d a c h i e v e m e n t s t r a t e g i e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , he s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e l e a r n e r appears t o have a c o r r e l a t i o n with strategy more w i l l i n g others  preference.  Some s t u d e n t s a r e  t o r u n t h e r i s k o f making a m i s t a k e  prefer t o avoid  suggests that  while  m a k i n g m i s t a k e s . He a l s o  r i s k - t a k i n g o r 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 t h e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r . F o r instance  t h e L2 t e a c h e r  who f o c u s e s  form, o r encourages an attempt t h a n no a t t e m p t  at a l l will  i n L2 p r o d u c t i o n  attribute  Furthermore,  CS t o b e i n g  over rather  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 strategies.  on c o n t e n t  reduction  F a e r c h and Kasper  (1986)  a "strategic transfer", i.e. a  planned,  conscious codeswitch,  transfer",  i . e . an unplanned,  However, t h e y a d m i t determine  happening  "automatic  unconscious  codeswitch.  t o n o t b e i n g a b l e t o always  which k i n d  g i v e n time because  o r as an  o f d e v i c e i s being used  i ti s difficult  a t any  t o determine  i n t h e mind o f t h e l e a r n e r ,  what i s  consciously or  subconsciously. In Labov's study o f t h e s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c differences of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n d i s t i n g u i s h e s between c a r e f u l  of English,  (1966) he  and c a s u a l speech.  These  t e r m s show s i m i l a r q u a l i t i e s t o t h e t e r m s s t r a t e g i c a n d automatic t r a n s f e r that e a s i e r t o determine. during careful  F a e r c h and K a s p e r  S i n c e t h e t y p e o f CS may  and c a s u a l speech,  appropriate alternatives Careful  speech  speech,  alter  t h e s e t e r m s seem  f o r u s e when l a b e l l i n g  t h e CS.  i n v o l v e s p l a n n i n g o f t h e speech  a c t , w i t h f r e q u e n t pauses speech  use y e t are  f o r thought,  whereas c a s u a l  i n v o l v e s no p l a n n i n g , b u t r a t h e r  spontaneous  s p u r r e d on b y p r e s s u r e , e x c i t e m e n t o r  frustration.  The terms w i l l  discussing the different There  t y p e s o f CS.  i s some c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r w h i c h k i n d o f  strategies  facilitate  and  (1983) a r g u e  Kasper  b e u s e d when a n a l y z i n g and  a c q u i s i t i o n and l e a r n i n g . that the use o f  Faerch  achievement  17  s t r a t e g i e s rather than reduction hypothesis Tarone  formation  s t r a t e g i e s encourages  and t h e r e f o r e  (1980) d i s a g r e e s  enhances  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 a r e h e l p f u l . E l l i s concludes that  learning.  i n h i s c h a p t e r on communicative  (1986)  strategies  i t i s n o t y e t c l e a r whether L I - o r L2-based  s t r a t e g i e s a r e more h e l p f u l t h a n t h e o t h e r ,  o r which  a s p e c t s o f SLA a r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s . C o d e s w i t c h i n g a n d SLA From a s p e c u l a t i v e p o i n t  o f v i e w , t h e CS may be  r e g a r d e d a s a means t o i m p r o v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n when w i t h a L2 d i f f i c u l t y .  I n some i n s t a n c e s ,  c b d e s w i t c h e s and i n so d o i n g , to  flow  without avoiding  conversation. negotiate  In t h i s  allows  t h e L2  learner  t h e communication  or dropping the t o p i c  from  s e n s e , t h e L I becomes a t o o l t o  meaning and f a c i l i t a t e  c o m m u n i c a t i o n . When  l e a r n e r s u s e t h e L I i n s u c h a manner, t h e s t r e s s may be l o w e r e d . F o r some l e a r n e r s and  level  i t may b e t h e e a s i e s t  f a s t e s t means b y w h i c h t h e message c a n b e  c o m m u n i c a t e d . Hence, CS may a l l o w quality the  faced  f o r t h e q u a n t i t y and  of o v e r a l l t a l k t o increase  negotiation Neither  when i t i s u s e d i n  o f meaning.  K r a s h e n n o r L o n g a c k n o w l e d g e CS a s h a v i n g  a r o l e i n SLA y e t i t d o e s a p p e a r t h a t  CS h a s a r o l e i n  18  c e r t a i n kinds theories recognize CS, strategy  of  i n t e r a c t i o n . Such c u r r e n t l y  eventually the  will  have t o widen t h e i r  r o l e o f CS  therefore,  can  that provides  in be  is  called  an  a means by  intrasentential  or  the  which the  location, social  and  perspective  status  can  the  i n f l u e n c e the  in addition to  communicative s t r a t e g y  as vary  size-of-constituent  s p e a k e r ' s age, CS.  From an  looking  t h a t may  i t  the  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 ,  i n t e r l o c u t o r s , and  perspective,  the  can  topic  d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f CS  b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e s sometimes a f f e c t e d by  constraints.  learner  i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l switches that  equivalence-of-structure  and  achievement  o r a v o i d a n c e . From a l i n g u i s t i c  possible to describe  scope  SLA.  c o n t i n u e communicating w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o deletion  accepted  be  a t CS  the sex,  or  educational  as  a  influenced  Ll-based by  the  l e a r n e r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and  proficiency level  the  teacher  s i t u a t i o n , i t appears t h a t  may  occur f o r other  and  classroom  r e a s o n s as  well.  i n the  L2, CS  19  CHAPTER THREE D e s c r i p t i o n and A n a l y s i s o f t h e Data Subjects The  students chosen were nine matched p a i r s : e i g h t  males, t e n females,  ranging i n age between f i f t e e n and  s i x t e e n y e a r s o f age i n t h e i r f o u r t h year o f FSL. They v o l u n t e e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s and r e p r e s e n t a mix i n language a b i l i t i e s . Design  and Procedure Nine p a i r s o f students completed f o u r t a s k s .  E i g h t p a i r s were matched f o r sex and age i n a L a t i n square,  w i t h one e x t r a p a i r . S i n c e no s e q u e n t i a l o r d e r  i n f l u e n c e was e v i d e n t i n t h e t a s k s , t h e n i n t h p a i r was i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s . Ten minutes were a l l o t t e d f o r each t a s k and t h e time l a p s e between performance o f t h e f o u r t a s k s was minimal. Before t h e s e r i e s o f computer t a s k s began, t h e students were i n s t r u c t e d i n E n g l i s h on the b a s i c o p e r a t i o n o f t h e computer and t h e programs. For comparison purposes, one o f t h e f o u r t a s k s was c o n v e r s a t i o n . A videotape was made w h i l e t h e students worked on each t a s k and t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h e recorded i n t e r a c t i o n s were made t h e r e a f t e r .  20  Description  o f the Tasks  The c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s u s e d i n c l u d e d program,  a word p r o c e s s i n g p r o g r a m ,  represent t y p i c a l classes. style  software  a  vocabulary  and a game. T h e y  programs used i n FSL  The v o c a b u l a r y p r o g r a m i s f o r m a t t e d  of a d r i l l  i n the  and p r a c t i c e p r o g r a m ; t h e word  p r o c e s s i n g p r o g r a m c a n be u s e d a s a t o o l  to  writing  exercise  skills;  and t h e game i s a r e v i e w  thematic vocabulary.  Although  most  develop of  of the students  had  some b a c k g r o u n d i n c o m p u t e r s , t h e p r o g r a m s c h o s e n were unfamiliar  t o them. T h e y a r e d e s c r i b e d a s  The v o c a b u l a r y p r o g r a m c o n s i s t e d  of questions  f i l l - i n - t h e - b l a n k w i t h t h e c o r r e c t word multiple then  computer would r e p l y  correct  as " B i e n ! " o r  the student typed  The e n t i r e p r o g r a m , i n French.  including  or not,  "Essayez  As w e l l ,  i n the correct  the instructions,  answer. was  t h e program a l l o w e d t h e  students t o choose the d i f f i c u l t y of  students  The p r o g r a m w o u l d n o t c o n t i n u e on t o t h e n e x t  question u n t i l  presented  such  of  i t e m and t h e  i f t h e answer was  w i t h a comment i n F r e n c h  with  from a l i s t  c h o i c e answers. Working i n p a i r s , t h e  c h o s e t h e number o f t h e c o r r e c t  encore".  follows.  level  and t h e number  q u e s t i o n s t o be done. A t t h e end o f t h e p r o g r a m ,  the  21  students  were i n f o r m e d  incorrect  o f t h e number o f c o r r e c t a n d  responses.  Using  a word p r o c e s s i n g p r o g r a m , e a c h p a i r o f  s t u d e n t s was a s k e d  to write a letter  cooperatively to  t h e i r t e a c h e r d e s c r i b i n g what t h e y h a d b e e n d o i n g her  l e a v e from t h e s c h o o l . As w e l l ,  asked  each p a i r worked w i t h  the students  animals, an  item  a game. T h i s game  t o p i c k a theme s u c h  as c l o t h i n g ,  o r f o o d . T h e n t h e c o m p u t e r p r o c e e d e d t o draw f r o m t h a t theme on t h e s c r e e n . The s t u d e n t s ,  timed  a g a i n s t t h e c l o c k on t h e c o m p u t e r s c r e e n ,  spell  correctly  be.  since  had t o  t h e item they b e l i e v e d t h e sketch t o  When g e t t i n g t h e answer c o r r e c t ,  the students  g i v e n p o i n t s d e p e n d i n g upon t h e r a p i d i t y a n s w e r . When i n c o r r e c t ,  they  lost  were  of their  p o i n t s and t h e  c o m p u t e r d i s p l a y e d t h e c o r r e c t answer on t h e s c r e e n . Language  Variation  S i n c e many s t u d i e s h a v e shown t h a t l a n g u a g e v a r i e s between t a s k , tasks i n front  this  study  has chosen t o look a t s e v e r a l  o f t h e c o m p u t e r a s w e l l a s one t a s k away  from t h e computer. I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l e v e l o f the  students'  discourse a b i l i t i e s ,  r e q u i r e d t o converse  the students  i n p a i r s on t o p i c s t h e y  were  chose.  This  study has been performed t a k i n g  into  c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e 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 Krashen  (1988, p . 1 ) , SLA " r e q u i r e s  interaction  to  meaningful  i n t h e t a r g e t language - n a t u r a l  communication - i n which speakers a r e concerned n o t with  t h e form o f t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s  but with  t h e messages  t h e y a r e c o n v e y i n g a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . " T h i s he s t a t e s leads  t o comprehensible  further  i n p u t . As a r e s u l t  i n t e r a c t i o n can occur,  a c q u i s i t i o n p o s s i b l e . As w e l l negotiation of that  input  making  of this,  language  as comprehensible  i s felt  input,  t o be e q u a l l y  i m p o r t a n t . Many t e a c h e r s  agree with  (1985) i n t h a t  must be p u t i n a p o s i t i o n o f  being  able  "Learners  t o negotiate  the input,  Long a n d P o r t e r  thereby  ensuring  t h a t t h e language i n which i t i s heard  i s modified t o  exactly the level  they can  manage." As  (p.  of comprehensibility  214).  w e l l , many r e s e a r c h e r s  made t o u t t e r a n c e s ,  state that  i . e . i n t e r a c t i o n a l devices  comprehension checks, c l a r i f i c a t i o n repetitions Bearing  this  classrooms,  modifications such as  requests,  and r e p a i r s , promote language a c q u i s i t i o n . i n mind, i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h e n t h a t students  should  be p e r f o r m i n g t a s k s  i n L2 that  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 .  Therefore,  i t seems most a p p r o p r i a t e  f o r students  to  do  g r o u p w o r k . A l l f o u r t a s k s h a v e b e e n done i n p a i r s i n this the  study.  Working i n p a i r s or s m a l l groups  q u a n t i t y and  quality  individualization positive Porter,  of student  of instruction,  affective  environment  talk,  and  increases  allows  creates  for  a  f o r l e a r n i n g . (Long &  1985).  Analyses A one-way r e p e a t e d v a r i a n c e was  measures d e s i g n  u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e were  differences  i n d i s c o u r s e as a r e s u l t  (Wilkinson,  1989,  p.  509).  c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k and followed  of the  C o n t r a s t s between  the d i f f e r e n t  ( W i l k i n s o n , p.  quantities  a n a l y s i s of  452).  f o r e a c h p a i r was  The  computer  rank order  tested using  599).  As  a rank-order  statistic  this  task the tasks of  Friedman's  n o n - p a r a m e t r i c 2-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e p.  any  (Wilkinson,  does not  i n t o account the  s i z e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between  conversation  computer use:  in  and  conversation  o f computer  averaged twice  The  quantity of  as h i g h t h a n  take  speech  i n any  use. Results  In the  initial  counts i n French  and  study  of the data,  gross  E n g l i s h were done t o  word  determine  type  differences  i n the quantity o f student  word c o u n t s f o r e a c h p a i r d u r i n g Table  1. I t a p p e a r s a s i f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n  results  that  o f t h e ANOVA  Computer t a s k s this  task  Following  that,  a r e d i s p l a y e d , which i n d i c a t e  t h e r e was l e s s t a l k o v e r a l l  compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n  The g r o s s  e a c h t a s k a r e shown i n  promoted t h e g r e a t e s t q u a n t i t y o f t a l k . the  talk.  during  computer u s e  (F = 6.847, d f 3, p <  contrasted with  conversation  .002).  agree  with  (F = 15.809, d f 3, p < . 0 0 4 ) . The r a n k o r d e r o f  quantities  f o r e a c h p a i r was t e s t e d u s i n g  Friedman's  n o n - p a r a m e t r i c 2-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e a n d f o u n d t o be  significantly  different  from chance  (p <  .020).  25 Table 1 Total  Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair  Oral Production of  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Means  French  Conv.  Wp.  Vocab.  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  Conv.  Wp.  Vocab.  344.000  152.444  175.667  U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures Source  SS  Hypothesis Error  DF  216742.306 253242.440  N o t e . Conv. r e f e r s to  program  3 24  Game 178.000 228.000 148.000 201.000 282.000 191.000 85.000 112.000 101.000  Game 169.556  F-Test MS 72247.435 10551.769  F  0.002  t o t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n d a t a ; Wp.  refers  d a t a ; Vocab. r e f e r s t o t h e  p r o g r a m d a t a ; Game r e f e r s t o t h e game  data.  P  6.847  t h e wordprocessing  vocabulary  and E n g l i s h  26  I n g e n e r a l , most r e s e a r c h e r s w o u l d a g r e e t h a t use  of the  LI does not  Therefore, different  the  f o r SLA.  e x a m i n e d was  French.  Looking  conversation  The  French  occurred with four tasks  particular  interest  can  the use  that  of speech i n  see  that  seem t o  French produce  o f t h e game b e i n g  2 indicates that the use  over  3,  p <  English .000).  conversation  and this  averaging  with  85%  French  usage  and  59%  c o n t r a s t a n a l y s i s between the  three  computer t a s k s  (F = 41.066, d f  3,  p <  further  .000).  Using  F r i e d m a n ' s n o n - p a r a m e t r i c 2-way ANOVA, t h e  rank  o f q u a n t i t i e s f o r e a c h p a i r was  found  significantly  Of  a r e t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e means  c o m p u t e r t a s k s a v e r a g e b e t w e e n 3 5%  u s a g e . The  the  considerable  of French  (F = 25.409, d f  w h i c h show c o n v e r s a t i o n  agrees with  one  the  better  of the data  computer t a s k s  with  during the  French  used d u r i n g  appears t o s t i m u l a t e the g r e a t e s t  overall,  whereas t h e  aspect  production  2,  SLA.  i n d i c a t o r of the  next  at Table  l e a s t productive. Table variance  an  the t o t a l  p r o d u c t i o n whereas t h e less  facilitate  g r e a t e r amount o f F r e n c h  t a s k s c o u l d be  stimulator was  appear t o  the  different  t e s t e d and  from chance  (p <  .000).  order to  be  Table 2 Percentage  o f French  Used  Conv. Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Means  96.000 69.000 61.000 94.000 95.000 81.000 95.000 89.000 83.000 Conv. 84.778  Wp.  Vocab.  Game  57.000 47.000 53.000 67.000 65.000 23.000 94.000 55.000 71.000  83.000 68.000 64.000 55.000 70.000 9.000 73.000 42.000 42.000  57.000 18.000 24.000 51.000 32.000 7.000 62.000 29.000 38.000  Vocab.  Game  56.222  35.333  Wp. 59.111  U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures Source Hypothesis Error  SS 11090.306 3763.944  DF 3 24  F-Test MS 3696.769 156.831  F 23.572  P 0.000  The quality  f o l l o w i n g step of talk  in this  study  examined t h e  occurring during the four tasks.  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  Since  a r e means b y w h i c h one  i m p r o v e s c o m m u n i c a t i o n 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  attribute their  sign of the quality  of talk.  t o being  d e v i c e s were c o u n t e d f o r  3 d i s p l a y s t h e use o f comprehension  c h e c k s and c l a r i f i c a t i o n the use o f r e p e t i t i o n s  requests  and T a b l e  and r e p a i r s .  4 displays  The f i r s t  column  includes the conversation  away f r o m t h e c o m p u t e r  and  involve conversation  the other  negotiating  a  T h e number o f  modifications or interactional each task. Table  occurrence  three tasks  a t a s k a t t h e computer.  data  while  Table 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 Production Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Conv. 0.010 0.003 0.027 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000  Wp.  Vocab •  0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.000  (7) (1) (1) (2) (2) (0) (0) (0) (0)  (0) (2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)  T o t a l Raw S c o r e s (14) Means  0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000  (2)  Game 0.011 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 0.000  (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0)  (2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (2)  (1)  Conv •  Wp.  Vocab  Game  0.005  0.002  0.001  0. 001  Univariate  Repeated Measures  Source  SS  Hypothesis Error  0.000 0.001  N o t e . Raw s c o r e s  DF 3 24  arewritten  F-test MS  F  0.000 0.000  1.405  i n brackets.  P 0.266  30 Table  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 Production Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Conv. 0. 047 0. 036 0. 040 0. 002 0. 089 0. 013 0. 004 0. 004 0. 029  Over T o t a l  Wp.  (32) (13) (15) (57) (29) (04) (15) (05) (06)  Oral  Vocab.  0. 050 0. 070 0. 070 0. 089 0. 072 0. 030 0. 155 0. 092 0. 043  (08) (02) (28) (17) (10) (03) (16) (07) (04)  0. 075 0. 060 0. 048 0. 055 0. 070 0. 000 0. 073 0. 100 0. 000  Game  (16) (08) (06) (10) (12) (00) (06) (35) (00)  0. 028 0. 022 0. 034 0. 034 0. 070 0. 000 0. 035 0. 044 0. 010  (05) (05) (05) (07) (20) (00) (03) (05) (01)  T o t a l Raw S c o r e s  Means  (161)  (95)  (93)  (51)  Conv.  Wp.  Vocab,  Game  0.029  0.075  0.046  U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures Source Hypothesis Error  SS  DF  0.012 0.020  N o t e . Raw s c o r e s  3 24  0.031  F-Test MS 0.004 0. 001  are written i n brackets.  F  P  4.806  0.009  31  T h e r e a p p e a r s t o be b a s e d on t h e u s e discourse, Tables  there  4,  i f one  i s a higher  looks at the  of interactional  frequency  task  d e v i c e s made i n  c o n v e r s a t i o n a p p e a r s t o be  f o r t h e use  compared t o t h e data  interactional  especially  3 and  stimulator  of  some v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n  i n the use  raw  data.  a  greater  devices  because  of these  devices  c o m p u t e r t a s k s . However, b e c a u s e  a r e c o n t r o l l e d by  d i m i n i s h e s when t u r n e d  total  production, the  into a  the  variation  ratio.  When l o o k i n g a t t h e 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  wordprocessing  program. There i s a p o s s i b l e r e a s o n  this  other than  discourse.  program, t h e they  r e p a i r s o c c u r s d u r i n g the use  b e i n g means o f n e g o t i a t i n g i n p u t  During  the use  students  of the  typically  of  the for  during  wordprocessing repeated  themselves  as  typed.  R: G: R:  Nous, n o u s , n o u s , sommes? u h . . . . Nous, nous sommes u h . . . . Nous sommes...oui. Nous sommes a v o i r un ha!  G:  Nous sommes a v o i r un  Perhaps these  types  p a r t y . Ha  o f r e p e t i t i o n s and  n e g o t i a t i o n of the t a s k but students'  thoughts  while  party.  ha! r e p a i r s do  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  the  In  during  rather a verbalization they  typed.  not  of  Ha  32  It use  appears t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n might encourage t h e  of the interactional  d e v i c e s mentioned  above.  However, t h e u s e o f t h e c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o e n c o u r a g e any s i g n i f i c a n t interactional Mohan English use  devices  use o f  whatsoever.  (1986) a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f  a s a S e c o n d Language s t u d e n t s  during  computer  compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n a n d h a d somewhat  findings. quality study,  similar  Computer u s e p r o d u c e d l o w e r q u a n t i t y a n d  o f i n t e r a c t i o n than  i n the conversation.  In h i s  f o r e a c h p a i r t h e q u a n t i t y o f s p e e c h was two t o  three times  higher  f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n compared t o  c o m p u t e r u s e . F r e q u e n c y o f c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k s was as t h e measure o f t h e q u a l i t y and  once a g a i n  o f speech and n e g o t i a t i o n  the conversation task produced a g r e a t e r  number o f c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k s t h a n In s p i t e o f these  during  computer u s e .  preliminary analyses  of the data  s h o w i n g p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e t a s k s , felt  i t was  t h a t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s was w a r r a n t e d b a s e d on t h e  CS i n t o E n g l i s h d u r i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t the  used  students  were a s k e d t o s p e a k o n l y  tasks.  i n French,  them u s e d E n g l i s h o c c a s i o n a l l y and i n some frequently.  Although a l l of  cases  The p u z z l i n g e d u c a t i o n a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l  33  reasons  for this  CS f r o m F r e n c h  latter part of this  to English inspired the  study.  Codeswitching Ideally,  t h e FSL teacher  where t h e s t u d e n t s without this  can p r a c t i c e t h e flow o f French  the interruption of English. Theoretically,  k i n d o f t a s k may i n c r e a s e t h e a b i l i t y  French is  strives t o create a task  and r e s u l t  important  t h i s type  which t a s k  i n t h e u s e o f French. The  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 favors French  interruption  English  minimal  a n d p e r h a p s e n c o u r a g e s SLA.  ratio over  usage w i t h  of the total  the total  number o f c o d e s w i t c h e s  number o f words f o r e a c h  d u r i n g each t a s k a r e d i s p l a y e d i n Table standard  d e v i a t i o n s , means s q u a r e s  CS v a r i e s among t a s k s  often during conversation A  pair  5. T h e means,  the hypothesis,  i n t h a t CS o c c u r s  least  (F = 4.230, d f 3, p < 0 . 0 1 9 ) .  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  differs  from t h e computer t a s k s  conversation  i n t h e u s e o f CS (F =  48.675, d f 1, p < 0.000). F r i e d m a n ' s n o n - p a r a m e t r i c way  ANOVA was u s e d t o t e s t  into  and F v a l u e s a r e  shown t h e r e a f t e r . The ANOVA s u p p o r t s that  Therefore, i t  t o d e t e r m i n e what k i n d s o f t a s k s a l l o w f o r  of practice  differences  The  i n higher acquisition.  to think i n  2-  t h e rank order o f q u a n t i t i e s  34  f o r each p a i r and the rank o r d e r was found t o be significantly different  (p < 0.006).  Table 5 Ratio of  Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair  C o d e s w i t c h i n a Over  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Means  Total Oral  Conv.  Wp.  2.770 4.432 6.720 2.184 2.477 2.990 4.115 4.712 2.415  7.075 16.129 7.053 7.368 6.522 7.000 2.913 9.211 6.383  Source Hypothesis Error  Vocab. 5.446 8.209 8.800 12.022 8.696 7.692 4.878 10.435 6. 050  Conv.  Wp.  3.646  7.739  U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures SS 126.385 239.035  DF 3 24  Production  Vocab. 8.025  Game 14.697 9.211 10.135 7.901 1.773 3.141 14.118 7.143 4.950  Game 8.119  F-Test MS 42.128 9.960  4.230  0.019  Finally, down and  the  production show t h a t  and  f o r the there  and  the  f o u r t a s k s . The  analysis  CS  (F =  CS  were b r o k e n the  ratio  o v e r t o t a l word  significant difference (F =  of  ANOVAS f o l l o w  1.216, d f  3,  p  <  and  i n the  4.036, d f  3,  p  <  shows no  0.079). A  use  0.325).  p e r f o r m e d between i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l  t h r e e computer t a s k s s t i l l  difference  CS  7 list  intersentential  i s no  intrasentential  contrast  types of  a n a l y z e d . T a b l e s 6 and  intrasentential  of  different  A CS  significant further  test  u s i n g F r i e d m a n ' s n o n - p a r a m e t r i c 2-way ANOVA shows n o t h i n g c o n c l u s i v e about the (p < CS,  differences  0 . 1 3 7 ) . However, when l o o k i n g  at  i n rank  intersentential  there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference.  The  use  of  c o m p u t e r game a p p e a r s t o p r o m o t e t h e  use  of  intersentential  p  0.010).  CS  (F =  4.729, d f  C o n t r a s t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n with the agrees with t h i s statement 0.000). The  rank order of  significant  difference  (F =  3,  (p <  <  t h r e e computer  128.741, d f  quantities 0.004).  order  3,  p  the  tasks <  f o r each p a i r  show  Table 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 Production  Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Means  Conv.  Wp.  2.478 2.216 3.226 1.214 2.167 0. 664 3.704 3.141 1.932  3.302 6.452 2.771 3.158 3.623 2.000 2.913 3.947 2.128  Conv.  Wp.  2 .305  3.366  U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures Source Hypothesis Error  SS 9.641 63.443  DF 3 24  Total Oral  Vocab.  Game  2.970 5.970 4.000 6.011 5.072 0.000 2.439 4.638 1.423  8.427 1.754 3 . 378 2.980 0.000 1.047 2 . 353 3.571 0.990  Vocab.  Game  3.614  2.722  F-Test MS  F  P  3.214 2.643  1.216  0.325  Table 7 Ratio of Intersentential Production  Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Means  Codeswitching  Conv.  Wp.  0.292 2.216 3.495 0.971 0.310 2.326 0.412 1.571 0.483  3.774 9.677 4.282 4.211 2.899 5.000 0.000 5.263 4.255  Conv.  Wp.  1. 342  4.373  U n i v a r i a t e Repeated Measures Source Hypothesis Error  SS 81.793 138.377  Over T o t a l Vocab. 2.475 2.239 4.800 6.011 3.623 7.692 2.439 5.797 4.626  Oral Game 6.180 7.456 6.757 4.470 1.773 2.094 11.765 3.571 3.960  Vocab. 4.411  Game 5.336  F-test  DF  MS  F  P  3 24  27.264 5.766  4.729  0.010  39  Conclusions 1.  on t h e d a t a  T h e r e was l e s s  student  interaction  during  c o m p u t e r u s e compared t o c o n v e r s a t i o n . 2. computer 3. of  T h e r e was l e s s tasks.  T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  interactional 4.  use  d i f f e r e n c e i n the use  devices during the four  tasks.  T h e g r e a t e s t amount o f CS o c c u r r e d  during the  o f t h e game. 5.  The l e a s t  conversation 6. of  French i n t e r a c t i o n during the  during the  task.  T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t  intrasentential 7.  amount o f CS o c c u r r e d  d i f f e r e n c e i n the use  CS d u r i n g t h e f o u r t a s k s .  T h e r e was a g r e a t e r u s e o f i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l  CS  d u r i n g t h e u s e o f t h e game.  Discussion When e x a m i n i n g t h e d a t a , total  word p r o d u c t i o n  one c a n s e e t h a t t h e  as w e l l as t h e percentage o f  spoken F r e n c h v e r s u s  English are consistently highest  during conversation.  (See T a b l e s  1 - 2 ) . There a r e  s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h i s . D u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k , when f a c e d w i t h lull  i n the conversation  several p a i r s of students  a  40  became i n v o l v e d i n p h a t i c communion, speech i n which t i e s exchange o f words." example,  of union  other  1949,  some o f them b e g a n t h e i r  f o r some t i m e .  common. The questions quantity  a r e c r e a t e d by  (Malinowski,  asking each other t h e i r  use  and  p.  of  a mere  315).  conversation  For with  names, i n s p i t e o f k n o w i n g  each  D i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t t h e w e a t h e r were  of these  simple w e l l - p r a c t i c e d  a n s w e r s i s one  of French  i . e . "a t y p e  versus  p o s s i b l e reason  E n g l i s h was  why  greater  the  during  conversation. Moreover, w h i l e concentrated  conversing,  the  students  on u s i n g c o m m u n i c a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t o  in their  knowledge gaps. P a r a p h r a s i n g ,  repairs,  and  fill  repetitions,  c o n f i r m a t i o n c h e c k s were u s e d 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  during  computer  use.  of the  computer,  the  However, when w o r k i n g students  dealt with  i n front  unfamiliar topics for  discussion.  Faced w i t h making c h o i c e s  the  they  screen,  l e a r n how with  raised  trying  choice  example o f t h i s program  from the  follows:  on  to  questions,  i n t o n a t i o n o f t e n were r e s p o n d e d by  choice vocabulary Deux?  some t i m e r e a d i n g ,  t h e programs worked. S h o r t  words. A t y p i c a l  C:  spent  from q u e s t i o n s  single  multiple  S: C: S: C: S: C: S: C:  No. Oui...um....Quatre. Quatre.... oops. Trois. Oh...deux. Ah. . . Un? O u i . . . . ah ... deux. However, w h i l e  i n front  of the  r e g a r d l e s s o f w h i c h p r o g r a m was  computer,  b e i n g used,  s t u d e n t s were d r i v e n by t h e d i r e c t e d p a t h c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m . P h a t i c communion was and  so never  answers,  o c c u r r e d . The  interjections,  words, o f t e n i n v o l v i n g interaction with lower The  the t o t a l  Different One  little  use  allowed  Types o f  occurs every  time  intrasentential  CS.  of  meaningful  perhaps h e l p i n g t o  i s the use  switches  languages  o f CS. inside  Occurring within a  the codeswitch An  for  spelling  and  communicative  i n the data  a speaker  or phrase,  inappropriate  Codeswitching  s i n g l e communicative episode. sentence  the  d u r i n g t h e computer t a s k s .  o f t h e more i n t r i g u i n g  s t r a t e g i e s that occurs  the  vocabulary,  word c o u n t s  of  of yes/no q u e s t i o n s  numbers and CS,  the  example f r o m  i s called the  conversation  data i s : T:  When e s t - c e que  t u vas?  Quand e s t - c e que  tu  vas?  CS a  42  CS  a l s o o c c u r s between d i f f e r e n t  extended An W: T: W:  discourse. This i s called  example o f t h i s  sentences o r  i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l CS.  f r o m t h e game d a t a i s :  Pantalon. T, A, N.... What happened? Q u ' e s t - c e que c ' e s t ? Huh? There  variations  a r e many p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s i n t h e CS. W h i l e  working  s t u d e n t s commented on how much t h e y  f o r these w i t h t h e game, many liked  it.  During  t h e u s e o f t h e game t h e y b e g a n t o r e l a x a n d p e r h a p s take the a c t i v i t y  a little  o t h e r t a s k s . As w e l l , the b u i l t - i n  time  c l o c k o f t h e computer, t h e s t u d e n t s excited  k i n d s o f language  were  S:  Four, quatre. Non. Oui. Non. Quatre.  s e r i o u s l y than the  under t h e s t r e s s t o win a g a i n s t  became e m o t i o n a l ,  J: S: J: S: J:  less  and f r u s t r a t e d .  Different  produced.  Quatre?  Wrong! What a r e t a r d ! D u r i n g t h e game, s h o r t q u e s t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s  were p r e v a l e n t . W i t h t h e s t r e s s o f c o m p e t i t i o n a n d t i m e limitations, often.  the ability  t o m a i n t a i n t h e L2 b r o k e  down  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 t h a n  w i t h t h e u s e o f t h e o t h e r computer programs o r d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . The s t u d e n t s t h e n c o d e s w i t c h e d  back  43  to French. I t i s p o s s i b l e that the students codeswitched back because speak  t h e y were o r i g i n a l l y  asked t o  F r e n c h a s much a s p o s s i b l e b y 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 n o t b e a  communicative  strategy but rather a sign of lack of control maintenance  o f t h e L2 when u n d e r  C o d e s w i t c h i n g as a Communicative  over the  stress. Strategy  CS a p p e a r s 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 t a s k ,  a d d i n g a new d i m e n s i o n t o  t h e r e s e a r c h t h a t h a s o c c u r r e d i n CS. CS c a n b e v i e w e d  as a communicative  strategy  which  t h e l e a r n e r may u s e t o c o n t i n u e s p e a k i n g w i t h o u t resorting deletion Kasper  to a reduction of the topic.  (1986) c a l l  Under achievement strategic Careful  strategy  T h i s t y p e o f L I use F a e r c h and  an L l - b a s e d achievement strategies,  transfer  and C a s u a l  such as avoidance o r  strategy.  they use the l a b e l s  and a u t o m a t i c  transfer.  Speech  T h e r e a p p e a r t o be many r e a s o n s f o r t h e l e a r n e r t o c o d e s w i t c h . CS a p p e a r s t o show v a r i a t i o n d e p e n d i n g the task's a b i l i t y to casual like  t o promote c a r e f u l  s p e e c h . As m e n t i o n e d  a strategic  transfer,  speech  earlier,  on  compared  careful  speech,  involves planning of the  speech a c t , w i t h f r e q u e n t pauses  f o r thought. Casual  44  speech,  like  an a u t o m a t i c t r a n s f e r ,  p l a n n i n g , but r a t h e r spontaneous During c a r e f u l the  speech,  most o b v i o u s and  involves  no  speech.  i t appears  i n the data  f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e o f CS  when t h e s p e a k e r l a c k s k n o w l e d g e o f a l e x i c a l has  a memory l a p s e . The  learner often f i l l s  w i t h a word o r p h r a s e f r o m t h e L I . M o s t intrasentential  CS  seems t o a p p e a r  s p e e c h . T h i s t y p e o f CS  that  happens nature or  i n the  gap  often  during  careful  occurred frequently during  c o n v e r s a t i o n t a s k where t h e l e a r n e r s s p o k e  the  slowly,  s o m e t i m e s h e s i s t a t i n g w h i l e t h e y t h o u g h t a b o u t what t o say.  The  following  examples o f  samples  from t h e d a t a a r e  possible  this:  E x a m p l e 1: Conversation R: Uh... t u e s a l l e a V a n c o u v e r l e grad? E x a m p l e 2: Vocabulary J: Une m a i s o n , a p a r t e m e n t , plug.  ...afterward? A f t e r  e t whatever,  Example 3: Conversation S: P o u r q u o i e s t - c e que t u e s f a t i g u e ? G: um...j'ai... S: t u n ' a s . . . w h a t ' s s l e e p ? e s t - c e que q u e . . . u h . . . u h . . . t u ne dorm p a s ? G: Non. S: Pourquoi? G: J ' a i um...insomnia.  plug...une  ...est-ce  Example 4: Conversation 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 s a x o p h o n e p e u t - e t r e a v e c mon s c h o l a r s h i p .  du  Also during careful appears  t o be  have j u s t Although  a n e e d by  said  speech,  sometimes  l e a r n e r s t o r e p e a t what  i n t h e L 2 by t r a n s l a t i n g  t h e s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e L I may  c l o s e t o being comprehensible speaker  there  i t into the  be  f o r the  accurate  been s a i d  LI.  or  interlocutor,  seems t o show a n e e d t o t r a n s l a t e ,  r e i n f o r c e what h a s  they  the  perhaps t o  o r b e c a u s e o f some  p e r s o n a l d o u b t t h a t what s/he  i s saying i s  comprehensible. Example 1: Conversation S: Qu * e s t - c e que t u d a n s e s A:  Um...je ne  d i s . . . j e ne  avec?  d i s pas...I'm n o t  saying.  Example 2: Conversation S: E s t - c e que t u e t u d i e s p o u r l e s examens? D i d s t u d y f o r y o u r exams? G: Non... E x a m p l e 3: Conversation S: P a r l e z en f r a n g a i s ! C ' e s t une c a s s e t t e recorder...c'est jouer en...it's playing. During without  c a s u a l speech,  pauses f o r thought.  codeswitch  vocabulary  t o do  so.  appear  o f t e n use  needs t o use  a  an  I t i s possible that this  kind  of  l e a r n e r s have not been f o r m a l l y  t h e means t o m o d i f y  understanding.  can  d e v i c e but perhaps l a c k the s t r u c t u r e or  occurs because the  taught  Learners  a t t h e p o i n t s/he  interactional  CS  codeswitches  you  speech  However t h e s e  when  lacking  s w i t c h e s may  be  simply  examples o f t h e use surfacing  i n the  of a highly  frequent LI  item  L2.  Example 1: V o c a b u l a r y program S: Quatre. J: Hmm? S: Quatre. J: Huh? S: R e t u r n , r e t u r n . What? What do we J: Deux. Deux.  do?...Okay.  E x a m p l e 2: Conversation C: E s t - c e q u e . . . Q u e s t - c e que... q u e s t - c e J: What? C: Q u ' e s t - c e que t u e s ? 1  1  que  tu  es  Example 3: V o c a b u l a r y p r o g r a m A: L e s what? B: Um...les s e r v a n t s ? It tasks,  a l s o appears c a s u a l speech  t h a t when d o i n g more o c c u r s and  students  more f r e q u e n t l y . Q u i t e o f t e n t h e y u s e CS.  During the use  decreased  significantly  CS  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Labov's l a b e l  may  speech  be  i n t h a t t h e CS  p l a n n i n g on  CS  appears  the speaker's  codeswitch  intersentential  o f t h e game, t h e u s e and  stressful  of  French  increased. T h i s type  t o happen  of casual without  part.  E x a m p l e 1: Game S: Trois? J: Trois! S: Deux. J: Deux. S: Deux! You p r e s s e d t h e wrong one! J: I p r e s s e d t h e wrong one. S: You r e t a r d ! Y o u ' r e m a k i n g i t wrong. J: S o r r y ! No I d i d n ' t . Um...Quatre? Non, S: Okay, t r o i s .  trois.  of  Finally, mindedly because  some s t u d e n t s seem t o c o d e s w i t c h  o r f o r no a p p a r e n t  reason, perhaps  absent-  simply  they are relaxed.  Example 1: Vocabulary A: So i t ' s t h r e e . . . f o u r ? S: Un...deux...un, u n . . . . A: I h a v e no i d e a . . . j e ne s a i s p a s . S: J e ne s a i s p a s . Example 2: C:  Vocabulary  Ooh!...Tapez one p o u r c o n t i n u e r .  Conclusion In for  summary, i n an e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g ,  several p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c reasons.  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 u s e d unplanned  achievement  From a n  as a planned o r  strategy to solve a  communication d i f f i c u l t y .  CS o c c u r s  language  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 t h e t a s k which r e s u l t s  i n different  of  speech, t h e  CS. When CS o c c u r s d u r i n g c a r e f u l  l e a r n e r may do s o t o f i l l intrasentential  a knowledge gap, o f t e n u s i n g  CS. The l e a r n e r may a l s o u s e t h e L I t o  r e i n f o r c e through said  kinds  translation  e x a c t l y what h a s b e e n  i n t h e L2 i n o r d e r t o make c e r t a i n t h e  i n t e r l o c u t o r understands Furthermore, interactional may a p p e a r  highly  what i s b e i n g  said.  frequent L I items, which a r e o f t e n  d e v i c e s made a t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  when u n d e r s t r e s s o r s p e a k i n g  points,  casually.  CHAPTER FOUR Conclusions Codeswitching that with  i n t h e L2 c l a s s r o o m  few e x c e p t i o n s  educational  researchers  u s e d r e g u l a r l y amongst especially  those with  have c o n s i d e r e d  has been i g n o r e d and t e a c h e r s  within discourse  by  alike.  Y e t CS i s  n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s o f a L2, limited proficiency. Linguists  CS i n t r i g u i n g  c o m m o n a l i t i e s between  i s a phenomenon  in their  search f o r  l a n g u a g e s and t h e l o c a t i o n s  that the switches  occur.  S o c i o l i n g u i s t s h a v e s t u d i e d t h e r e a s o n s f o r CS, a t t r i b u t i n g the switches t o the s o c i e t a l s p e a k e r . From an e d u c a t i o n a l proficient anything, Research  needs o f t h e  perspective,  CS  amongst  b i l i n g u a l s has been s t u d i e d b u t l i t t l e , i f h a s b e e n done w i t h  CS and t h e LP  learner.  Implications  The r e a s o n s f o r t h e d i s r e g a r d  o f CS a s an  i m p o r t a n t phenomenon i n SLA c a n o n l y be s u r m i s e d a t this point.  Perhaps t h i s  has been p l a c e d little the  on t e a c h i n g  that  t h e L2 i n t h e L2 and t h e  p u r p o s e t h a t has been a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e use o f  L I i n SLA. Y e t t h e r e g u l a r o c c u r r e n c e o f CS may  a clue to helping of  i s due t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e  SLA.  t o explain the psychological  be  process  Another aspect is  anything  on  the  Nevertheless,  this  t h a t t a s k has  an  Therefore  CS  influential  t h a t i s absent  f r o m t h e CS  relationship  o f t a s k and  study  w i t h many  impact  agrees on  language  Intersentential  CS  the type  CS.  researchers  variation.  s t u d i e s need t o r e g a r d t a s k as f a c t o r on  research  o f CS  that  an  occurs.  seems t o o c c u r 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  this  may  a p p e a r more  study,  intrasentential  CS  f r e q u e n t l y d u r i n g t a s k s which allow and  communicate t h e  These aspects the  study  CS  o f CS  o f CS  Pedagogical  L2.  the d i f f e r e n t  and  in  SLA.  can  be  error in  L2  the a n a l y s i s  a t t r i b u t e d to the More o f t e n ,  study, learner the  t o L I i s used t o improve communication  Therefore,  i t s use,  possibly  speech.  tasks i n t h i s  r e s o r t i n g t o LI use.  reconsider the r o l e for  plan  for investigation  i t s relationship to  a l l codeswitches  codeswitch  areas  t e a c h e r s . However, t h r o u g h  done on  g i v i n g up  the  and  new  most o f t e n b e e n v i e w e d a s an  p e r f o r m a n c e by  not  add  in careful  to  Implications  has  o f t h e CS  s t r a t e g y , as  f o r time  the  L2  teachers  o f CS  especially  and  should develop  amongst LP  in  perhaps a positive  policy  learners. Quite  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 r i s k s and practice his/her attempts i n L2 production. This study has been conducted with an emphasis on i n t e r a c t i o n i n 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 i n t h i s study but may be worthy of examination to give us further clues to understanding SLA. Recommendations for Computers i n the FSL Classroom One of the fears that many teachers have i s that the computer cannot analyze creative language and therefore cannnot help i n SLA. However, i f the teacher's perspective changes from perceiving the computer as an instructor to viewing i t as a t o o l f o r students, then using the computer to enhance communicative interaction and SLA i s possible. In order to use the computer e f f e c t i v e l y i n the L2 classroom, grouping of students i s e s s e n t i a l . Otherwise,  l i t t l e or no negotiation w i l l occur,  e s s e n t i a l for SLA. According to Long & Porter (1985), i n order to obtain the most practice i n negotiation, students should be put i n 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  b a c k g r o u n d s . 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 put together according t o d i s s i m i l a r  proficiency  levels. The  u s e o f t h e c o m p u t e r a s 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 a n d b e c a u s e o f i t s r e c e n t a p p e a r a n c e , L2 t e a c h e r s h a v e much t o l e a r n a b o u t how t o use  i t e f f e c t i v e l y . Many o f t h e c o m p u t e r s o n t h e m a r k e t  today  h a v e t r e m e n d o u s p o w e r a n d 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 e v e n a f e w y e a r s a g o . Software  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.  Therefore,  computer hardware and s o f t w a r e  s h o u l d b e 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  purchases 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 m a t c h c u r r i c u l u m y e t do not a l l o w f o rt a s k m o d i f i c a t i o n a r e not always t h e best purchases.  B e t t e r purchases  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 include databases,  spreadsheets,  and  wordprocessing  p r o g r a m s b e c a u s e t h e y c a n a l l be u s e d r e p e a t e d l y w i t h the f l e x i b i l i t y  t o modify  the task according t o the  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 p r a c t i c e type of programs are imitations of workbooks and therefore seem more appropriate for i n d i v i d u a l use rather than group work. However, depending on the teacher's demands of the task, the use of a computer program can be placed i n a series of multiple language tasks involving reading, writing and o r a l work and hence become a tremendous motivator for language development. An example of t h i s would be an adventure simulation game where students would be given the task of keeping a log book of t h e i r travels and using the wordprocessor, write up a summary of the t r i p . Using a database program, students could gather information on t h e i r t r i p , c l a s s i f y i t into appropriate categories and use i t to produce a t r a v e l  brochure.  Graphics could be applied with a graphics program. Hence, the computer becomes a work station to do multiple tasks, much l i k e what would be used i n industry. Students should gain a greater amount of input and interaction when using the computer under the following conditions: Guidelines for Computer Use i n L2 Classrooms 1.  Groupwork - E s s e n t i a l l y , students should work i n  p a i r s at the computer, matched for sex and age. However  t h e y s h o u l d be from d i s s i m i l a r proficiences 2.  Software  f o r maximum  language  backgrounds o r  interaction.  - The c h o i c e o f s o f t w a r e u l t i m a t e l y  on t h e 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 , that  i s n o t language  promoting  language  software  database,  i s often better at  General use software  spreadsheets  games a r e e x a m p l e s o f t h i s .  Drill  language  student use i n  o r a t home. S u c h p r o g r a m s do n o t p r o m o t e  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  spelling  a n d grammar  3.  as i n  and s i m u l a t i o n  and p r a c t i c e  s o f t w a r e may b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s i n g l e the l i b r a r y  software  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 . wordprocessing,  depends  i n improving  skills.  Language I n t e r a c t i o n a l  Tasks  - Students  given a task or series of tasks that  need t o be  involve the  n e g o t i a t i o n o f m e a n i n g a n d where t h e c o m p u t e r becomes the necessary t o o l  t o complete  the task. Negotiation of  meaning i s f u n and promotes language  acquisition.  Conclusion Software  a i m e d f o r t h e L 2 c l a s s r o o m must be  j u d i c i o u s l y w i t h language  interaction  chosen  i n mind. Whatever  t h e t a s k may b e , a s o f t w a r e p r o g r a m b e i n g u s e d o r conversation being practiced, is  the f a c i l i t a t i o n  d e p e n d e n t on t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s  o f SLA  o f t h e t a s k a t hand as  54  well  as t h e grouping  be t h a t  conversation  facilitative classroom.  of students.  I n some c a s e s ,  i t may  i s more a p p r o p r i a t e a n d  i n SLA compared t o c o m p u t e r u s e i n t h e L2  References A t k i n s o n , D a v i d . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The m o t h e r t o n g u e i n t h e c l a s s r o o m : a n e g l e c t e d r e s o u r c e ? ELT J o u r n a l . 41(4). B e r k - S e l i g s o n , S u s a n . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . 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 code-switching; A study of S p a n i s h / H e b r e w 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. C a n a l e , M i c h a e l , e t a l . (1985) M i c r o c o m p u t e r Software f o r L a n g u a g e A r t s : S u r v e y and A n a l v s i s . I n f o r m a l S e r i e s / 6 3 . T o r o n t o : The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education. C l y n e , M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o n s t r a i n t s on c o d e s w i t c h i n g : How u n i v e r s a l a r e t h e y ? 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 . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Codes w i t c h i n g i n the speech o f a d o l e s c e n t s born o f 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. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . U n d e r s t a n d i n g s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c g u i s i t i o n . Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. F a e r c h , C l a u s . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . L e a r n e r l a n g u a g e and l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . C l e v e d o n , Avon, E n g l a n d : Multilingual Matters Ltd. Faerch, C l a u s & 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. Longman.  Harlow:  F a e r c h , C l a u s & Kasper, G a b r i e l e . (1986). C o g n i t i v e d i m e n s i o n s o f language t r a n s f e r , i n E. K e l l e r m a n & M. Sharwood S m i t h ( E d s . ) , 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 s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c g u i s i t i o n (pp. 4965) O x f o r d : Pergamon. H e l l e r , Monica. (1988). C o d e s w i t c h i n g : 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 : W a l t e r 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 s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g . (Language t e a c h i n g m e t h o d o l o g y s e r i e s ) . New Y o r k : P r e n t i c e H a l l . Krashen, and  S t e p h e n . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The I n p u t H y p o t h e s i s : I s s u e s I m p l i c a t i o n s . London: Longman.  L a b o v , W i l l i a m . ( 1 9 6 6 ) . 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 Y o r k C i t y . W a s h i n g t o n C e n t e r f o r Applied Linguistics. 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 o f S p a n i s h 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 University. L o n g , M i c h a e l , & P o r t e r , P a t r i c i a . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . G r o u p work, i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k , and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . T e s o l Q u a r t e r l y . 19, 207-228. M a l i n o w s k i , B. ( 1 9 4 9 ) . i n C. K. Ogden & I . A. R i c h a r d s , The m e a n i n g o f m e a n i n g . London. R o u t l e d g e and P a u l . 296-336. Mohan, B e r n a r d . (198 6 ) . I n t e r l a n g u a g e and t h e J A L T J o u r n a l . 7 ( 2 ) , 157-169.  computer.  P o p l a c k , S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . "Sometimes I ' l l s t a r t a s e n t e n c e i n S p a n i s h y t e r m i n o en e s p a n o l " ; 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. P o p l a c k , S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . B i l i n g u a l i s m and t h e v e r n a c u l a r . I n B. H a r t f o r d , A. Valdman, & C. F o s t e r , I s s u e s i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l b i l i n g u a l education: the r o l e of the v e r n a c u l a r , (pp. 1-23). New Y o r k : Plenum P r e s s . Tarone, E. (1980). Communication s t r a t e g i e s , foreigner 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 . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . L i n g u i s t i c s , c o m p u t e r s and t h e 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. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . SYSTAT: The s y s t e m f o r s t a t i s t i c s . E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s : SYSTAT, I n c .  57 Appendix Word c o u n t s were a c c o m p l i s h e d Word. C o n t r a c t i o n s s u c h a s e s t - c e , English,  don't,  by u s i n g M i c r o s o f t j'aime,  or i n  c'mon, e t c . were t h e r e a f t e r c o u n t e d  and  a d d e d i n a s two s e p a r a t e w o r d s . Words s u c h a s oh a n d no(n)  d e p e n d e d o n t h e c o n t e x t t h e y were u s e d ;  were c o u n t e d  as French  i f surrounded  w o r d s , o t h e r w i s e t h e y were c o u n t e d Laughter, uh,  aw,  letters  mmm,  spelled  French  as E n g l i s h .  o u t , a n d s o u n d s l i k e ummm,  ooh, were d e l e t e d  n o u n s were c o u n t e d  by o t h e r  i . e . they  from t h e c o u n t s .  as t h e language  Proper  s u r r o u n d i n g 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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078260/manifest

Comment

Related Items