Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of task complexity & proficiency on foreigner talk discourse and communication strategies… Shortreed, Ian McFarland 1987

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 S56_7.pdf [ 6.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078298.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078298-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078298-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078298-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078298-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078298-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078298-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078298-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078298.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF TASK COMPLEXITY & PROFICIENCY ON FOREIGNER TALK DISCOURSE AND COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN NS-NNS INTERACTION By IAN MCFARLAND SHORTREED B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE- REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Department of Language Education, F a c u l t y of Ed u c a t i o n We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January 1987 ©Copyright Ian Shortreed, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of I- <&A^U4L?£. The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date ^ T ^ c ^ o u ^ x ^ / (? , /f8y of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make r>F-6 f W R - n ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted to examine the ef f e c t s of task complexity and learner proficiency i n native speaker (NS)/non-native speaker (NNS) int e r a c t i o n . A t o t a l of 24 Japanese NSs and 12 NNSs subjects representing three l e v e l s of proficiency, low (n=4), intermediate (n=4) and advanced (n=4), were randomly assigned to dyads to complete two communication tasks, each d i f f e r i n g i n r e l a t i v e complexity. Three composite variables made up of 32 dependent variables were used to measure the frequency of formal reduction, communication and repair strategies across both tasks. The hypothesis that NSs would simplify their speech and use a higher frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n a l modifications i n accordance with the l e v e l of proficiency of the NNSs and the complexity of the tasks was tested. The results for the f i r s t independent variable of proficiency, indicated there was a trend showing that NSs si m p l i f i e d their speech when addressing NNSs i n general and i n p a r t i c u l a r , when addressing lower l e v e l learners of Japanese. The re s u l t s for the second independent variable of task complexity revealed that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the number of reduction, communication and repair strategies used on the more complex task for a l l groups. These findings are discussed in r e l a t i o n to previous research on NS-NNS int e r a c t i o n and implications for second language teaching are explored. Signature of Supervisor ,. r  i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE . i ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES • V LIST OF FIGURES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTERS: I. VARIATION IN INPUT 3 C r i t e r i a f o r Determining Task Complexity 7 Japanese F o r e i g n e r Talk 13 I I . MEASURING THE COMPLEXITY OF INPUT 15 Formal Reduction S t r a t e g i e s 17 Communication S t r a t e g i e s 19 Repair S t r a t e g i e s 24 Hypotheses 25 I I I . METHODOLOGY Design 29 Subjects . 29 M a t e r i a l s : D e s c r i p t i o n of Tasks 32 Procedure 33 IV. DATA ANALYSIS . " 35 i v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) V. RESULTS 39 Summary of R e s u l t s f o r Main Hypotheses ....... 39 Summary of R e s u l t s f o r I n d i v i d u a l V a r i a b l e s .. 51 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY 6 9 i APPENDICES 78 A. Placement Te s t s Used For Determining P r o f i c i e n c y 78 B. Samples of Tasks Used i n the Study 91 C. Anova Tables f o r 32 Dependent V a r i a b l e s 94 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.0 T r a n s c r i p t i o n Times 35 1.1 Sample of Computer Data F i l e 37 1.2 Table of Means f o r Task 1 & 2 - Words/T-unit 41 1.3 Words/T-unit S c h e f f e Test 41 1.4 Table of Means f o r Task 1 & 2 - T-units/Turn ... 42 1.5 T-Units per Turn S c h e f f e Test 42 1.6 Table of Means f o r Task 1 & 2 - Words/Min 43 1 .7 Words Per Minute S c h e f f e Test 43 1.8 Table of Means f o r Task 1 & 2 - Type Token 44 1.9 Type Token R a t i o S c h e f f e Test 44 2.1 Table of Means f o r Task 1 & 2 - Intralanguage .. 45 2.2 Intralanguage S t r a t e g i e s Scheffe Test 46 3.1 Table of Means f o r Task 1 & 2 Repair S t r a t e g i e s 47 3.2 Repair S t r a t e g i e s Scheffe Test 47 3.3 Anova Te s t f o r Composite Repair S t r a t e g i e s .... 48 4.1 Formal Reduction S t r a t e g i e s (Means & F V a l u e s ) . . 49 4.2 Topic Encoding S t r a t e g i e s (Means & F V a l u e s ) . . . . 50 4.3 Composite V a r i a b l e s (Means & F Values) 50 5.1 Repair S t r a t e g i e s ( I n d i v i d u a l V a r i a b l e s ) 52 5.2 Question Forms (Means & F Values) 43 6.1 Interlanguage S t r a t e g i e s (Means & F Values) .... 54 6.2 Intralanguage S t r a t e g i e s (Means & F Values) .... 55 APPENDIX C - Anova Tables & Means f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s .. 94 v i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Task Complexity Scoring Procedure 12 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Th i s study would not have been p o s s i b l e without the help of many people, e s p e c i a l l y the f a c u l t y and s t a f f of the Kokusai Koryu at the Kansai U n i v e r s i t y of Fo r e i g n Studies who allowed me t o conduct t h i s r e s e a r c h d u r i n g the 1983-84 academic year. S p e c i a l thanks to Hiroko Onaha f o r h e l p i n g with the r e c o r d i n g s e s s i o n s and p r o v i d i n g s t i m u l a t i n g feedback on the r e s e a r c h . Steven Ross provided much needed a d v i c e on the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used. I am g r a t e f u l to Drs. Michael Long and C r a i g Chaudron from the U n i v e r s i t y of Hawaii who read the i n i t i a l t h e s i s proposal and provided h e l p f u l suggestions f o r c a r r y i n g out the study. To my a d v i s e r s , Drs. Bernard Mohan, Kenneth Reeder, and Bernard Saint-Jacques many thanks f o r g u i d i n g what may be the most drawn out M.A. t h e s i s on r e c o r d at U.B.C. F i n a l l y , I owe much to my wife and e s p e c i a l l y my daughter who s a c r i f i c e d many MacPaint s e s s i o n s so that t h i s t h e s i s c o u l d be completed. 1 INTRODUCTION This study i s concerned with three p r i n c i p a l issues i n second language ac q u i s i t i o n research (SLA). F i r s t , i t i s designed to investigate developmental stages i n L 2 a c q u i s i t i o n as re f l e c t e d in the nature of input directed a NNSs representing three levels of proficiency. Previous research i n this area indicates that native speakers accommodate for non-native speaker proficiency by making both l i n g u i s t i c and in t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments. This study r e p l i c a t e s previous research i n order to confirm or reject the claim that such adjustments are triggered by the proficiency of the non-native speaker. Secondly, by focusing on task as an independent variabl t h i s study examines the effects of different task types on NS-NNS inte r a c t i o n . Previous research indicates that the nature of the communication task has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t the i n t e r a c t i o n a l structure of NS-NNS interaction. However c o n f l i c t i n g reports have emerged regarding the causes behi such v a r i a t i o n . Therefore, this study replicates previous research i n order to confirm or reject claims regarding th ef f e c t s of task complexity on NS-NNS interaction and attempts to further explore the causes for such v a r i a t i o n . Unlike the previous research questions, the th i r d major research question breaks new ground since this i s the f i r s empirical study to investigate the properties of Japanese FT. While much of the research on FT has been derived from 2 an a n a l y s i s of E n g l i s h and European languages, there i s very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on other languages such.as Japanese or Chinese. Given the c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t i n Asian languages, i t i s both a t i m e l y and needed area of r e s e a r c h . The t h e s i s i s d i v i d e d i n t o s i x chapters. Chapter 1 p r o v i d e s a g e n e r a l overview of the l i t e r a t u r e on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . Chapter 2 d i s c u s s e s the r a t i o n a l e behind the dependent v a r i a b l e s used i n the study. Chapter 3 d e s c r i b e s the methodology used i n c o l l e c t i n g the data. Chapter 4 i n t r o d u c e s the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures used. Chapter 5 r e p o r t s the f i n d i n g s of the study while Chapter 6 d i s c u s s e s the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s i n terms of previous f o r e i g n e r t a l k r e s e a r c h and the more general background of c u r r e n t second language a c q u i s i t i o n theory. 3 Chapter I V a r i a t i o n i n Input: The E f f e c t s of Task and P r o f i c i e n c y Recent second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h has focused on the input l e a r n e r s r e c e i v e , i nput which has been r e p o r t e d to be both q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the language addressed to n a t i v e speakers. T h i s s i m p l i f i e d r e g i s t e r which n a t i v e speakers (NSs) use when speaking to non-native speakers (NNSs) has been r e f e r r e d to i n the l i t e r a t u r e as " f o r e i g n e r t a l k " (FT) (Ferguson, 1971; Long, 1983). The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of FT have been rep o r t e d to occur a t both the sentence l e v e l through the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of syntax and l e x i s and at the d i s c o u r s e l e v e l where i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments are made by NSs to f a c i l i t a t e NNS comprehension. These adjustments occur i n the form of more q u e s t i o n s than statements addressed to NNSs, more c o n f i r m a t i o n and comprehension checks, and a higher frequency of r e p e t i t i o n , paraphrasing and expansions i n NS speech (Hatch, 1983). . Although numerous s t u d i e s have i n v e s t i g a t e d the sentence and d i s c o u r s e l e v e l f e a t u r e s of FT, there i s s t i l l no consensus on which of these i s most prominent. The s t u d i e s of Gaies (1977), Freed (1980) and S c a r c e l l a and Higa (1982) p r o v i d e e m p i r i c a l evidence which i n d i c a t e s t hat l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n p l a y s an important r o l e i n making NS speech - 4 more comprehensible t o NNSs. Moreover, these s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d t h a t the r e l a t i v e degree of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n d i f f e r e d a c c o r d i n g to the NNS's competence i n the second language. Long (1981a), on the other hand, found i n h i s study t h a t NSs d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i m p l i f y t h e i r syntax and l e x i s but i n s t e a d r e s o r t e d to more g l o b a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments such as r e p e a t i n g t h e i r own u t t e r a n c e s and employing a h i g h e r frequency of c o n f i r m a t i o n and comprehension checks when add r e s s i n g NNSs of E n g l i s h . However, Long d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s of the l e a r n e r s 1 p r o f i c i e n c y on the kinds of i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments made by NSs. A second and e q u a l l y important f i n d i n g i n Long's study was t h a t the type of communication task the l e a r n e r s engaged i n had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work i n NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s . In three tasks which r e q u i r e d a two-way exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged i n the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s of i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments used i n NS-NS and NS-NNS dyads. In three other t a s k s which r e q u i r e d o n l y a one-way exchange where one speaker merely conveyed i n f o r m a t i o n which the other speaker l a c k e d there was a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments i n the NS-NS and NS-NNS dyads ( i . e . v i c a r i o u s n a r r a t i v e , g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , and exchanging o p i n i o n s ) . The above s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t both the i n t e r a c t i o n of task type and the l e v e l of the l e a r n e r ' s p r o f i c i e n c y may determine the amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work which takes p l a c e 5 i n NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s . Although none of these s t u d i e s d i r e c t l y i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s h ypothesis, a number of rec e n t s t u d i e s examining 1 i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k 1 i n NNS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n have attempted to tease out the e f f e c t s of these two v a r i a b l e s . Varonis and Gass (1984) examined the amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work i n one-way and two-way communication ta s k s c a r r i e d out by nine intermediate ESL students from f o u r d i f f e r e n t language backgrounds. In the one-way task, one member of the dyad d e s c r i b e d a p i c t u r e which the other member drew. In the two-way task, an in f o r m a t i o n gap was c r e a t e d by having each l e a r n e r l i s t e n to a d i f f e r e n t account of a robbery and then both members exchanged i n f o r m a t i o n i n order to f i n d out who the robber was. Varonis and Gass found that the one-way task r e q u i r e d more n e g o t i a t i o n work than the two-way task as measured by the number of i n s t a n c e s where speakers i n d i c a t e d non-understanding. They concluded t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of shared background knowledge i n the second task f a c i l i t a t e d communication whereas the l a c k of shared r e f e r e n c e i n the f i r s t task l e d to a g r e a t e r amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work. In another study comparing non-native t a l k and teacher-f r o n t e d l e s s o n s , Doughty and P i c a (1984) r e p o r t that s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n e g o t i a t i o n work as measured by the percentage of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustments to t o t a l T - u n i t s and fragments occurred on a two-way task than on a one-way task s i m i l a r to the drawing task used i n the Varonis and Gass study. In the one-way task, one member d i r e c t e d the 6 o t h e r member to p l a c e p l a s t i c flowers on a f e l t board so as to r e p l i c a t e a completed drawing of a garden. In the two way t a s k , each member had a d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n of the garden and each had to exchange i n f o r m a t i o n to c o n s t r u c t the same p i c t u r e ( A i s m i s s i n g bottom r i g h t hand s e c t i o n of garden w h i l e B i s m i s s i n g top l e f t hand s e c t i o n of the garden). A number of other s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d out where the t a s k type has been h e l d constant i n order to compare l e a r n e r s with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y completing one-way tasks both with NSs and NNSs. Po r t e r (1983) found t h a t advanced l e a r n e r s employed a wider range of communication s t r a t e g i e s and were b e t t e r able to manage problems i n communication than intermediate l e v e l l e a r n e r s (see P a r i b a k h t , 1985 f o r a s i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n ) . In another study, Gass and Varonis (1985) found that the g r e a t e s t amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work occurred when l e a r n e r s of d i f f e r e n t p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s and with d i f f e r e n t language backgrounds i n t e r a c t e d . As i n both P o r t e r ' s and P i c a and Doughty's (1984/85) s t u d i e s , they r e p o r t e d that a g r e a t e r frequency of n e g o t i a t i o n sequences occurred i n the NNS-NNS dyads than i n NS-NNS dyads. Although t h i s l a t t e r f i n d i n g does not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e to the r e s e a r c h questions i n t h i s study, i t does i n d i c a t e that l e a r n e r s may be more cautious when communicating with NSs and as a r e s u l t ^ avoid t a k i n g r i s k s which they may otherwise take when conversing with NNSs. The use of such avoidance s t r a t e g i e s which seems to be d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to the l e a r n e r ' s p r o f i c i e n c y i n the t a r g e t language w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 2. 7 C r i t e r i a For Determining Task Complexity In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n , a d i s t i n c t i o n was made between tasks which r e q u i r e only one speaker to impart i n f o r m a t i o n to another and tasks where th e r e i s a two-way exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n . While the above d i s t i n c t i o n i s f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as the major c r i t e r i o n f o r j u d g i n g the complexity of a task, there are many other v a r i a b l e s which c o n t r i b u t e to task complexity. However, these v a r i a b l e s are o f t e n ignored i n SLA l i t e r a t u r e simply because much of the work on task complexity i s found i n L1 r e s e a r c h on v e r b a l l e a r n i n g and psychometric theory (see Crookes, 1986 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s i s s u e and Duff, 1986 f o r f u r t h e r comments on task & SLA). A b r i e f review of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s that a taxonomy of task complexity should be d e r i v e d from two p r i n c i p l e t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s : stimulus s a l i e n c e and motor s k i l l requirements. In the former category, three s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s can be made to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the r e l a t i v e s a l i e n c e of task s t i m u l i . F i r s t , the a b s t r a c t n e s s of the s t i m u l i has been shown to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on both comprehension and r e c a l l (Bevan and Steger,1971; Ga r d i n e r and Watkins, 1979). The use of a r e a l o b j e c t (or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of o b j e c t s i . e . cutouts) i n an experiment i s l e s s a b s t r a c t than a photograph of that object whereas a drawing of an o b j e c t i s even more a b s t r a c t than a 8 photograph. F i n a l l y , a word or utterance r e f e r r i n g to an o b j e c t c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d the most a b s t r a c t form of task s t i m u l i (Kolers and B r i s o n , 1984). Secondly, the number of c o n t e x t u a l clues i n the task s t i m u l i has been shown to i n f l u e n c e performance i n experiments which i n v e s t i g a t e d l e a r n i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( H a l l , 1 9 8 2 ) . For example, the e x i s t e n c e of c o l o r i n task s t i m u l i provides the s u b j e c t with another means of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between o b j e c t s and thereby a i d s comprehension. On the other hand, the absence of c o l o r means the r e are l e s s c l u e s f o r the s u b j e c t to draw upon when completing the task. S i m i l a r l y , the number of cues r e q u i r e d to d i s t i n g u i s h between two s i m i l a r discriminanda i n f l u e n c e s the r e l a t i v e complexity of a task. This i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by the two tasks used i n t h i s study. In the f i r s t task, both members of the dyad had i d e n t i c a l p i c t u r e s where two or t h r e e photographs shared i d e n t i c a l p r o p e r t i e s which meant t h a t the s u b j e c t s had to use more s p e c i f i c d i s c r iminanda to d i s t i n g u i s h between the d i f f e r e n t photographs. In the second t a s k , on the other hand, where one member of the dyad d i r e c t e d the other member to draw p i c t u r e s of d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t s on a g r i d , there were no two drawings which shared s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s and t h e r e f o r e , only one cue was needed to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the d i f f e r e n t drawings ( i . e . the name of the o b j e c t ) . Given only t h i s c r i t e r i o n , i t would appear t h a t the f i r s t task was more complex than the second task. However, the above d i f f e r e n c e between the two tasks was m i t i g a t e d by a t h i r d c r i t e r i o n f o r judging task s a l i e n c e , 9 t h a t i s , whether the subjects have access to the same amount of i n f o r m a t i o n when completing the task. Again, the tasks used i n t h i s study i l l u s t r a t e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . In the drawing task, only one member of the dyad possessed the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n f o r completing the task. In c o n t r a s t , i n the photo r e c o g n i t i o n task, both s u b j e c t s shared the same i n f o r m a t i o n s i n c e both possessed i d e n t i c a l sets of photographs. The i n f o r m a t i o n gap was based s o l e l y on the f a c t t h a t one member d i d not know the p r e s c r i b e d l o c a t i o n of the photographs on a master g r i d and t h e r e f o r e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n had to be conveyed from one member of the dyad who had the master g r i d to the other member who was only g i v e n the i n d i v i d u a l p i c t u r e s . Thus, there was an important d i s t i n c t i o n i n the amount of shared r e f e r e n c e which the s u b j e c t s could draw upon when completing each of these r e s p e c t i v e t a s k s . Given t h i s f a c t o r , i t would appear that the second task was more complex than the f i r s t task. Evidence to support t h i s c o n c l u s i o n was c i t e d e a r l i e r when the r e s u l t s of Gass and Varonis's (1985) study were compared with t h a t of Long (1981a). Gass and Varonis found that shared r e f e r e n c e i n t h e i r two-way task lessened the need f o r the NNS s u b j e c t s to n e g o t i a t e meaning. In the one-way task, however, where there was no shared r e f e r e n c e , more n e g o t i a t i o n work was r e q u i r e d to complete the task. A d d i t i o n a l evidence to suggest t h a t the drawing task i s more complex than the photo r e c o n s t r u c t i o n task can be seen i n the amount of motor a c t i v i t y r e q u i r e d to complete each 1 0 task- Although both tasks r e q u i r e d a r e s t r i c t e d form of p r o d u c t i o n , i n the second task the s u b j e c t s had to a c t u a l l y draw o b j e c t s whereas i n the f i r s t task they had to only arrange photographs i n a p r e s c r i b e d l o c a t i o n as d i r e c t e d by t h e i r p a r t n e r . The drawing task c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d g r e a t e r m o t o r - s k i l l c o o r d i n a t i o n than simply p u t t i n g o b j e c t s i n a p r e s c r i b e d p l a c e . The p i o n e e r i n g L1 study of F r a s e r , B e l l u g i and Brown (1963) provides e m p i r i c a l evidence to support t h i s c o n c l u s i o n s i n c e they found that performance on three tasks v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g to the degree of p r o d u c t i o n r e q u i r e d . They concluded t h a t the motor a c t i v i t y of p o i n t i n g to an o b j e c t a f t e r h e a r i n g a stimulus sentence was much l e s s demanding than a c t u a l l y having the s u b j e c t p o i n t and produce the name of the o b j e c t . In other words, manipulation of task s t i m u l i as evidence of comprehension i s l e s s complex than r e s t r i c t e d p r o d u c t i o n i n a drawing task or i n a two-way task where the o n l y s t i m u l i are u t t e r a n c e s as i n the Gass and Varonis study. In f a c t , the use of such two-way tasks n e c e s s i t a t e s t h a t the NNS has a a t t a i n e d high l e v e l of t h r e s h o l d competence and f o r t h i s reason such a task was not used i n t h i s study due to the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of beginning or elementary l e a r n e r s of Japanese. In order to summarize the above d i s c u s s i o n , F i g u r e 1 on page 12 i l l u s t r a t e s how task s a l i e n c e and m o t o r - a c t i v i t y requirements a f f e c t the complexity of the l e a r n i n g task. A s c o r i n g procedure has been adopted whereby d i f f e r e n t experimental tasks were evaluated f o r the degree of complexity based on the e x i s t e n c e or nonexistence of the 11 c r i t e r i a d e s c r i b e d above. While s i m i l a r measures have been employed to study s y n t a c t i c complexity both i n o r a l and w r i t t e n language development, such q u a n t i t a t i v e methods have not been used i n a p p l i e d l i n g u i s t i c r esearch to evaluate d i f f e r e n t methods of e l i c i t i n g data ( see Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982 f o r review of l i t e r a t u r e on morpheme s t u d i e s and P e r k i n s and Homburg, 1977 f o r w r i t t e n language). It- i s on the b a s i s of the f o l l o w i n g index that the drawing task used i n t h i s study has been scored as more complex than the photo r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k . Other types of tasks such as the f e l t board p i c t u r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n task used by P i c a and Doughty(1984), Lego blocks as used by S c a r c e l l a and Higa (1982), and the l i s t e n i n g based i n f o r m a t i o n gap of Varonis and Gass (1984) were evaluated u s i n g the same s c o r i n g procedure. T h i s method of e v a l u a t i n g task complexity should be i n t e r p r e t e d only as a h e u r i s t i c device s i n c e the use of such weighted scores f o r s p e c i f i c task a t t r i b u t e s has not been t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y . Such a study should be c a r r i e d out i n the f u t u r e i n order to determine i f such a h i e r a r c h i c a l schema can a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n e r s have completing d i f f e r e n t types of i n f o r m a t i o n gap t a s k s . FIGURE 1 COMPLEXITY = A b s t r a c t n e s s + Discriminanda + Reference + Motor A c t i v i t y = TC 1 2 3 4 + 1 2 3 1 2 3 + 1 2 + 1 2 3 4 SCORE 1 ) L i s t e n i n g x x x x x 15 Info-gap (2-way) 2) P i c t u r e x x x x x 1 1 Drawing (1-way) 3) Photo x x x x x 9 G r i d (1-way) 4) F e l t x x x x x 8 Board (2-way) 5) Lego x x x x x 7 Blocks (1-way) 1 = l e a s t complex to 4 = most complex * TC = TASK COMPLEXITY SCORE 1 3 Japanese F o r e i g n e r Talk In a d d i t i o n to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the two v a r i a b l e s of task complexity and p r o f i c i e n c y , t h i s study extends the re s e a r c h on f o r e i g n e r t a l k to the Japanese language. While there has been some e x p l o r a t o r y research done i n t h i s area, i t s t i l l remains to be seen whether the f i n d i n g s of previous FT r e s e a r c h are a l s o a p p l i c a b l e to languages such as Japanese which d i f f e r r a d i c a l l y both i n syntax and d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e from E n g l i s h and other northern European languages E a r l i e r s t u d i e s by Skoutarides (1981) and Long ( 1 983 ) 1 p r o v i d e only l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n on the f e a t u r e s of Japanese FT. Given the cu r r e n t i n t e r e s t i n the c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t s of SLA, t h i s i s an important area of i n v e s t i g a t i o n which s t i l l remains to be explored (see Anderson, 1984). To summarize the d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s chapter, three p r i n c i p l e areas of FT research have been o u t l i n e d : the e f f e c t s of p r o f i c i e n c y , task complexity and the t a r g e t language on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . Each of these areas were shown to be worthy of f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Thus, the f o l l o w i n g three research questions were examined i n t h i s study: 1) Does the pe r c e i v e d competence of a non-native speaker a f f e c t the kinds of l i n g u i s t i c and i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments made by a n a t i v e speaker? 1 . T h i s i s a secondary r e f e r e n c e to the o r i g i n a l study c i t e d i n Long (1983). The o r i g i n a l paper was not a v a i l a b l e at the time of w r i t i n g . 2 ) Is NS-NNS interaction affected the communication task? 3) Do such speech adjustments i n reported in previous research northern European languages? 1 4 by the complexity of Japanese resemble those on FT in English and other 1 5 Chapter II Measuring the Complexity of Input and I n t e r a c t i o n a l Features i n NS-NNS I n t e r a c t i o n In a survey of SLA l i t e r a t u r e , Tarone (1980) has p o i n t e d out t h a t r e s e a r c h on FT, communication s t r a t e g i e s and r e p a i r i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n would b e n e f i t from a more i n t e g r a t e d a n a l y s i s . In p a r t i c u l a r , Tarone argues t h a t these three phenomena u l t i m a t e l y share s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n a l purposes and are employed by both NSs and NNSs a l i k e , although they are o f t e n d e s c r i b e d as being independent of each o t h e r . A c c o r d i n g l y , Tarone suggests that l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustments i n NS speech have c o u n t e r p a r t s i n NNS speech as evidenced by NNS pr o d u c t i o n and communication s t r a t e g i e s . The f u n c t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i n NS speech i s to encode meaning i n a way th a t most f a c i l i t a t e s NNS comprehension while NNS p r o d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s are employed by the l e a r n e r i n order to 'take the path of l e a s t r e s i s t a n c e ' to ensure that h i s / h e r message i s understood. Thus, both NSs and NNSs adopt s i m i l a r s t r a t e g i e s t o a v o i d the use of complex syntax and l e x i s or what Faerch and Kasper (1983:38) r e f e r to as "formal r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s " . While such s t r a t e g i e s may help a v o i d t r o u b l e , they do not n e c e s s a r i l y h e l p when problems i n communication a c t u a l l y o c c u r . According to Tarone, t h i s i s the f u n c t i o n a l purpose of NS i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s , NNS communication 1 6 s t r a t e g i e s , and both NS and NNS r e p a i r work. As i n the case of formal r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , Tarone (1980:424) suggests t h a t many of the NS i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s r e p o r t e d i n FT l i t e r a t u r e could be c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r communication s t r a t e g i e s which are used to "provide some a l t e r n a t e means of communicating the n a t i v e speaker's intended meaning" or as r e p a i r work used f o r n e g o t i a t i n g "some c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the l e a r n e r ' s intended meaning". Tarone p o i n t s out that NS i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s such as expansions, s e l f and o t h e r r e p e t i t i o n s , and decomposition of complex p r o p o s i t i o n a l content a l s o have counterparts i n NNS communication s t r a t e g i e s such as paraphrasing, c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s , and r e s t r u c t u r i n g where the l e a r n e r r e f o r m u l a t e s h i s / h e r intended meaning i n the middle of an u t t e r a n c e . S i m i l a r l y , other NS m o d i f i c a t i o n s such as c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests, comprehension checks r e f l e c t s i m i l a r NNS r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s which have been d e s c r i b e d under the general term of "appeals f o r a s s i s t a n c e " and more r e c e n t l y f u r t h e r c l a s s i f i e d by Long and P o r t e r (1984:15) using the more s p e c i f i c schema of " v e r i f i c a t i o n of meaning, d e f i n i t i o n request, and l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y " . Tarone i s c a r e f u l i n drawing a d i s t i n c t i o n between these k i n d s of NS and NNS r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s which are used to n e g o t i a t e meaning and other types of r e p a i r which focus on the c o r r e c t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c form. A s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n i s made by Day et a l . (1984) i n t h e i r study of NS-NNS d i s c o u r s e where they d i s t i n g u i s h between c o r r e c t i v e feedback and r e p a i r . For the purposes of t h i s study, only NS and NNS 1 7 r e p a i r work w i l l be examined. The above d i s c u s s i o n provides the necessary t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r i n t r o d u c i n g the three composite dependent v a r i a b l e s used to analyze both NS and NNS speech i n t h i s study. These composite v a r i a b l e s w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as formal r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , communication s t r a t e g i e s , and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t should be pointed out t h a t these v a r i a b l e s are being employed as a h e u r i s t i c d e v i c e r a t h e r than as r e l i a b l e measures r e p r e s e n t i n g r e a l t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s . The i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s which make up these three composite measures have been grouped together a c c o r d i n g to d e f i n i t i o n s given i n the l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l as t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s . Each w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l below. Formal Reduction S t r a t e g i e s On the b a s i s of Long's (1981a) taxonomy of input m o d i f i c a t i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g dependent v a r i a b l e s were used to analyze both NS and NNS speech samples. The T-unit was chosen as a b a s e l i n e measure s i n c e t h i s has been shown to be a more s e n s i t i v e d i s c r i m i n a t o r of v a r i a t i o n s i n sentence syntax than the MLU (Mean Length of Utterance) which was used e x t e n s i v e l y i n e a r l y L1 a c q u i s i t i o n research (See Hatch 1983:92 f o r d i s c u s s i o n ) . The f i r s t dependent measure of T-u n i t l e n g t h or words per T - u n i t has been used i n e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h on f o r e i g n e r t a l k and i t has c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d between d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of complexity of NS 1 8 speech addressed to NNSs (Gaies 1976, Freed 1978, Long 1 981 ). The second measure of T-Units per speaker t u r n was a l s o used to f u r t h e r i s o l a t e i n s t a n c e s of l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . Both of these dependent v a r i a b l e s were d e f i n e d i n terms of the more p r e c i s e measure of e r r o r - f r e e T-units i n order t o b e t t e r d i s c r i m i n a t e between the l e a r n e r s ' d i f f e r e n t p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s as w e l l as to examine whether NS speech to NNSs i s grammatically well-formed . The e r r o r - f r e e T-unit has been shown to be the most r e l i a b l e measure f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between both o r a l and w r i t t e n language p r o f i c i e n c y of L2 l e a r n e r s (Larsen-Freeman, 1983). An e r r o r -f r e e T - u n i t i s d e f i n e d here as "a main clause plus a l l subordinate c l a u s e s and n o n c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s attached to or embedded i n i t which i s grammatically well-formed". The t h i r d dependent measure of type token r a t i o was adopted i n order to measure i f v a r i a t i o n s i n l e x i s r e s u l t e d from task complexity or NSs adopting a more r e s t r i c t e d v o c abulary when i n t e r a c t i n g with lower l e v e l NNSs of Japanese. Previous r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area has r e s u l t e d i n c o n f l i c t i n g r e p o r t s over whether t h i s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e of f o r e i g n e r t a l k (see Long, 1983 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s i s s u e ) . T h i s a d d i t i o n a l measure of l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i s designed to r e p l i c a t e previous research i n order to provide more d e f i n i t i v e evidence to support or r e j e c t claims made re g a r d i n g l e x i c a l v a r i a t i o n i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . 1 9 F i n a l l y , the f o u r t h measure of 'words per minute' has been i n c l u d e d to v e r i f y the r e s u l t s of Henzel(1979) and o t h e r s who r e p o r t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y slower r a t e of speech i n NS-NNS t a l k i n comparison to NS-NS t a l k . The f o l l o w i n g are the f o u r input v a r i a b l e s which were examined: NS & NNS FORMAL REDUCTION STRATEGIES 1a) Average length of e r r o r - f r e e T - u n i t s . b) R a t i o of e r r o r - f r e e T - u n i t s . 2) Number of T-units per speaker turn 3) Type token r a t i o 4) Words per minute. Communication S t r a t e g i e s The communication s t r a t e g i e s examined i n t h i s study can be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o three general types. F i r s t , i t was assumed t h a t NSs would t r y to make both t o p i c moves and t u r n - t a k i n g exchange boundaries more transparent by using a h i g h e r frequency of questions and imperatives when i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs. Moreover, the types of q u e s t i o n forms used i n NS-NS and NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n were a l s o expected to v a r y . Evidence to support these d i f f e r e n c e s i n NS- NS and NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n has been r e p o r t e d by Freed (1980), S c a r c e l l a and Higa(1 982) and Long (1981 a,1981b). The two dependent v a r i a b l e s measuring the r e l a t i v e frequency of these " t o p i c encoding communication s t r a t e g i e s " were: 20 NS & NNS TOPIC ENCODING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES 3) Number and p r o p o r t i o n of questions, statements and imperatives i n T- u n i t s on Task 1 & 2. 4) Question-types i n T- u n i t s on Task 1 & 2. The second type of communication s t r a t e g i e s which were examined i l l u s t r a t e how NSs and NNSs use a l t e r n a t e means to communicate t h e i r intended meaning. The f o l l o w i n g dependent v a r i a b l e s were d e r i v e d from the s t u d i e s of Long (1981a), Fa e r c h , Haastrup and P h i l l i p s o n (1984), B i a l y s t o k (1983) and Tarone (1983) These s t r a t e g i e s share one common a t t r i b u t e i n t h a t they are used to emb e l l i s h the speakers intended meaning which may f o r some reason not be c l e a r to the l i s t e n e r . T h i s i s achieved by speakers e i t h e r r e p e a t i n g t h e i r own or the other speaker's u t t e r a n c e s , paraphrasing (expanding upon) e i t h e r t h e i r own or another speaker's u t t e r a n c e , r e s t r u c t u r i n g (decomposing) a p r i o r utterance by br e a k i n g o f f i n mid sentence and s t a r t i n g over again, and f i n a l l y by s u b s t i t u t i n g a l e x i c a l item which shares c e r t a i n semantic f e a t u r e s with the t a r g e t item. An example of t h i s l a t t e r s t r a t e g y was repor t e d by B i a l y s t o k (1983:106) where NSs of E n g l i s h employed French words such as ' c h a i s e 1 ( c h a i r ) or ' t a b l e ' ( t a b l e ) to d e s c r i b e a ' t a b o u r e t 1 ( s t o o l ) d u r i n g a p i c t u r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n task. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a NS was expected to employ t h i s s t r a t e g y of "approximation" i f i t appeared that the NNS d i d not possess a p a r t i c u l a r v o c a b u l a r y item. A l l of these interlanguage s t r a t e g i e s were 21 measured i n terms of t h e i r frequency w i t h i n the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s per dyad: NS & NNS INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES 5a) Number of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s w i t h i n speaker turns b) Number of s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s across speaker turns c) T o t a l of 5a and 5b- t o t a l s e l f r e p e t i t i o n s 6) Number of o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s 7) Number of expansions/paraphrases 8) Number of restructured/decomposed sentences & fragments 9) Number of approximations 10) R a t i o of 5 through 9 combined i n T-units A l l of the above s t r a t e g i e s r e q u i r e that both NSs and NNSs use only one language without r e s o r t i n g to some other second language to convey t h e i r meaning. For t h i s reason, they are r e f e r r e d to as "in t e r l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s " , s t r a t e g i e s which o r i g i n a t e i n the NS's language or the NNS 1s second language. In c o n t r a s t , the t h i r d group of communication s t r a t e g i e s which were studied r e f l e c t c r o s s -l i n g u i s t i c borrowing on the p a r t of both speakers. These " i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s " are used only when e i t h e r the NS or NNS can not convey t h e i r intended meaning i n one language and are subsequently f o r c e d to r e l y on another language which both p a r t i e s know. In such cases, speakers may r e s o r t to word borrowing where they " f o r e i g n i z e " the morphology or phonology of a l e x i c a l item. Such a s t r a t e g y was p r e d i c t e d to be e s p e c i a l l y p r e v a l e n t i n t h i s study due to the l a r g e number of E n g l i s h loan words i n modern Japanese. Both NSs and NNSs of Japanese were expected to r e s o r t to t h i s s t r a t e g y to compensate f o r a NNS 1s low l e v e l of competence i n Japanese. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a second type of intralanguage s t r a t e g y which both NSs and NNSs were p r e d i c t e d to use was ' l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n ' where an E n g l i s h term or phrase was merely t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Japanese. Again, B i a l y s t o k (1983:106) i l l u s t r a t e s the use of t h i s s t r a t e g y among Anglophone Canadians who used such terms as "place de f e u " f o r f i r e p l a c e and "piece de temps" f o r timepiece. The use of such a s t r a t e g y by NSs may seem odd, but NSs may p e r c e i v e t h i s as being one way of accommodating f o r t h e i r NNS p a r t n e r ' s l a c k of competence i n the second language. As Long (1983:179) has po i n t e d out, t h i s type of ungrammatical FT may be t r i g g e r e d by e i t h e r the NNS's low l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y , the NS's p r i o r f o r e i g n t a l k experience or the s i t u a t i o n a l context i n which the i n t e r a c t i o n takes p l a c e . S i n c e the sampling procedure i n t h i s study c o n t r o l l e d f o r the l a t t e r two v a r i a b l e s , one p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the use of t h i s s t r a t e g y by both NSs and NNSs would be the NNSs' r e l a t i v e degree of competence i n Japanese. The t h i r d i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g y of code-switching was p r e d i c t e d to occur when both the NS and NNS had used up o t h e r resources f o r communicating t h e i r intended meaning. T h i s assumed, as do the other two intralanguage s t r a t e g i e s , t h a t the NS had access to the l e a r n e r ' s f i r s t language. Again, the sampling procedure i n t h i s study p a r t i a l l y c o n t r o l l e d f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e through the s e l e c t i o n of Japanese s u b j e c t s who r e p o r t e d to have extremely low competence i n E n g l i s h . However, a f t e r s i x years of E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n i n high s c h o o l , a l l the NS Japanese s u b j e c t s were co n s i d e r e d to have some f a m i l i a r i t y with E n g l i s h grammar as w e l l as having a r e s t r i c t e d vocabulary which c o u l d have been c a l l e d upon i n i n s t a n c e s where the NNS could not comprehend the NS's intended meaning. Of course, the use of t h i s and the other two in t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s was expected to be none x i s t e n t i n NS-NS conv e r s a t i o n s , however, i t was i n c l u d e d i n order answer one of the hypotheses of t h i s study which p r e d i c t e d t h a t a higher frequency of these k i n d s of s t r a t e g i e s would occur when NSs were matched with lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s of Japanese. S i m i l a r l y , t h i s group of lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s was p r e d i c t e d to use these kinds of s t r a t e g i e s more f r e q u e n t l y than advanced l e a r n e r s because of t r a n s f e r from t h e i r n a t i v e language whereas the more advanced l e a r n e r s were expected to employ a higher frequency of L2 based i n t e r l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s . Once again, a l l i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s were measured i n r a t i o to the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s per dyad: NS & NNS INTRALANGUAGE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES 11) Number of l e x i c a l items f o r e i g n i z e d 12) Number of l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n s 13) Number of code-switches 14) R a t i o of 11 through 13 combined i n T-units 24 R e p a i r S t r a t e g i e s In p r e v i o u s FT r e s e a r c h , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e has been r e p o r t e d i n the amount of r e p a i r which takes p l a c e i n NS-NS and NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n (see Long, 1983 f o r review of the l i t e r a t u r e ) . In t h i s study, Long and P o r t e r ' s (1984) composite measure of r e p a i r was used to analyze both NS-NS and NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . As i n the case of the three dependent measures used to examine in t r a l a n g u a g e communication s t r a t e g i e s , the f o u r t h dependent v a r i a b l e of "appeals f o r a s s i s t a n c e " was expected to be n o t i c e a b l y absent i n NS-NS c o n v e r s a t i o n s . However, i t was i n c l u d e d i n o r d e r to see i f lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s of Japanese r e s o r t e d to t h i s o v e r t s t r a t e g y of r e p a i r more f r e q u e n t l y than advanced l e a r n e r s . One of the hypotheses of t h i s study was t h a t a g r e a t e r amount of r e p a i r would occur i n the more complex task a c r o s s a l l p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s than i n the l e s s complex task and secondly t h a t the amount and type of NS and NNS r e p a i r work would vary a c c o r d i n g to the p r o f i c i e n c y of the NNS. The four dependent v a r i a b l e s which make up the composite v a r i a b l e of " r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s " are l i s t e d below. Again, the frequency of these dependent v a r i a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d as a r a t i o to the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s i n one dyad: 25 NS & NNS REPAIR STRATEGIES 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 a b c 1 9 Number of c o n f i r m a t i o n checks Number of comprehension checks Number of c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests Number of appeals f o r a s s i s t a n c e v e r i f i c a t i o n of meaning d e f i n i t i o n request l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y R a t i o of 15 through 18 combined Hypotheses In t h i s chapter, a number of hypotheses have alr e a d y been d i s c u s s e d and r e s e a r c h c i t e d to support the p o s s i b l e outcomes p r e d i c t e d . In t h i s s e c t i o n , each of the main hypotheses w i l l be presented a g a i n . A l l hypotheses w i l l be s t a t e d as d i r e c t i o n a l hypotheses. The c r i t e r i o n f o r a c c e p t i n g or r e j e c t i n g these hypotheses w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n i n Chapter 4. Hypothesis # 1 There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r p r o f i c i e n c y on the number of formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s NSs use when i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs of Japanese. 26 Sub-Hypotheses a) Japanese NSs w i l l use more formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s with low l e v e l l e a r n e r s of Japanese than with intermediate and advanced l e a r n e r s . b) Japanese NSs w i l l use more formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s w i t h intermediate l e a r n e r s of Japanese than with advanced l e a r n e r s of Japanese. c) Japanese NSs w i l l use more formal reduction,communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s with advanced l e a r n e r s of Japanese than with NSs of Japanese. d) Low l e v e l NNSs of Japanese w i l l use more L1 based i n t r a l a n g u a g e communication s t r a t e g i e s than L 2 based interlanguage communication s t r a t e g i e s than e i t h e r i n t e r m e d i a t e or advanced l e a r n e r s . Hypothesis # 2 There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r task on the number of formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s NSs use when i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs of Japanese. Sub-hypotheses a) Japanese NS w i l l use more formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s when i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs i n the more complex task (task 2) than i n the l e s s complex task (task 1 ) . Hypothesis # 3 There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t f o r p r o f i c i e n c y and task on the number of formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s NSs use when i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs of Japanese. Sub-hypotheses a) NSs w i l l use more formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on the more complex task (task 2) than on the on the l e s s complex task (task 1) with low l e v e l l e a r n e r s than with e i t h e r i n t e r m e d i a t e or advanced l e a r n e r s . b) NSs w i l l use more formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on the more complex task (task 2) than on the on the l e s s complex task (task 1) with intermediate l e a r n e r s than with e i t h e r advanced l e a r n e r s or NSs of Japanese. 28 NSs w i l l use more formal r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on the more complex task (task 2) than on the l e s s complex task (task 1) with advanced l e a r n e r s than with NSs of Japanese. Low l e v e l NNSs of Japanese w i l l use more L1 based intralanguage communication s t r a t e g i e s than L2 based interlanguage communication s t r a t e g i e s on the more complex task (task 2) than on the l e s s complex task (task 1) than e i t h e r i n t e r m e d i a t e or advanced l e a r n e r s . 29 CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY Design The study i s based on a 2 X 4 f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e design with one repeated measure. The f i r s t independent v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y (Factor A) represents the f i r s t f a c t o r with four l e v e l s ( NS-NS, NS-high NNS, NS-in t e r m e d i a t e NNS, and NS-low NNS) while the second v a r i a b l e of t ask complexity represents the repeated measures f a c t o r ( F a c t o r B) with two l e v e l s (task 1 & 2). Subj e c t s American undergraduate exchange students were matched with Japanese 1st year u n i v e r s i t y students to complete 2 1 t a s k s . A t o t a l of 12 American students were s e l e c t e d : 4 elementary, 4 intermediate and 4 advanced l e a r n e r s of Japanese. The l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y was based on the placement t e s t i n g b a t t e r y used by the Department of Japanese as a Second Language at the Kansai U n i v e r s i t y of F o r e i g n S t u d i e s to pl a c e students i n three l e v e l s of the Japanese 1. O r i g i n a l l y a l l s u b j e c t s completed 4 ta s k s . The l a t t e r two tasks have been dropped from t h i s a n a l y s i s i n o r d e r to s i m p l i f y the design of the study. These tasks were a l t e r n a t e forms of task 1 & 2 where the NNS s u b j e c t s d i r e c t e d the NS s u b j e c t s . T h i s was designed to measure d i f f e r e n c e s i n NNS pr o d u c t i o n across p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . T h i s data w i l l be examined at a l a t e r date i n a seperate p u b l i c a t i o n . 30 language program. The placement t e s t c o n s i s t e d of d i s c r e t e p o i n t t e s t s i n a d d i t i o n to a g l o b a l p r o f i c i e n c y measure d e r i v e d from o r a l i n t e r v i e w s g i v e n p r i o r to the commencement of c l a s s e s ( See Appendix A f o r copy of d i s c r e t e p o i n t placement t e s t ) . Both groups of s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d on a v o l u n t e e r b a s i s w i t h teachers i n the r e s p e c t i v e c l a s s e s r e q u e s t i n g students who wished to p a r t i c i p a t e to s i g n t h e i r names on a r e g i s t r a t i o n form so that they c o u l d be contacted by the r e s e a r c h e r at a l a t e r date. The only i n f o r m a t i o n given to the s u b j e c t s was t h a t the study was g e n e r a l l y l i n g u i s t i c i n nature and i n v o l v e d n a t i v e and non-native speakers of Japanese. In the case of the Japanese n a t i v e speaker s u b j e c t s , only those students who had extremely l i m i t e d c o n t a c t with f o r e i g n e r s were accepted to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. When s i g n i n g t h e i r name on the r e g i s t r a t i o n form, the Japanese s u b j e c t s were asked to i n d i c a t e the amount of exposure to f o r e i g n e r s by answering the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n which was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Japanese: I have: (a) never had a chance to speak with a f o r e i g n e r . (b) only spoken with a f o r e i g n e r once or twice i n my l i f e . (c) spoken with many f o r e i g n e r s . . (d) many f o r e i g n f r i e n d s . (e) t r a v e l l e d overseas to v i s i t f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s . ( f ) l i v e d overseas f o r an extended perio d of time. 31 The reason such care was taken i n s e l e c t i n g Japanese s u b j e c t s who had l i m i t e d exposure to f o r e i g n e r s was t h a t FT d i s c o u r s e may be g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d by what Long(1983) r e f e r s to as " p r i o r FT experience". The most obvious m a n i f e s t a t i o n of t h i s can be seen i n the second language classroom where ESL/FL teachers make adjustments which i n some cases, appear to hinder r a t h e r than a i d comprehension (Chaudron, 1983 ; Long and Sato, 1983). In one of the few s t u d i e s t h a t has i n v e s t i g a t e d Japanese FT, Skoutarides (1981) s e l e c t e d Japanese n a t i v e speaker s u b j e c t s who not o n l y had r e s i d e d overseas f o r an extended p e r i o d of time but a l s o who a l r e a d y knew the non-native A u s t r a l i a n students who a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. In r e p o r t i n g her f i n d i n g s , S k o u t a r i d e s g e n e r a l i z e s her r e s u l t s beyond her immediate p o p u l a t i o n to " n a t i v e speakers of Japanese" whereas i t i s much more l i k e l y t h a t the r e a c t i o n s of her NS s u b j e c t s r e f l e c t p r i o r f o r e i g n e r t a l k experience. Therefore, i n o r d e r to g e n e r a l i z e the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study to a l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n , the e f f e c t s of p r i o r FT experience were c o n t r o l l e d f o r through the above sampling procedure. On the b a s i s of the r e g i s t r a t i o n forms, 24 Japanese NS s u b j e c t s were randomly assigned to form 12 NS-NS dyads with an equal number of males and females p a r t i c i p a t i n g . To c o n t r o l f o r moderator v a r i a b l e s such as age and sex, there were an equal number of same sex and mixed sex dyads with the age of the s u b j e c t s ranging from 18 to 20 years. A s i m i l a r procedure was used to match the NS Japanese s u b j e c t s with NNS American su b j e c t s by randomly a s s i g n i n g 12 of the 24 NS s u b j e c t s to NS-NNS dyads. However, s i n c e there were twice as many NNS males i n the advanced c l a s s e s as there were females, i t was not p o s s i b l e to have e x a c t l y the same number of same sex and mixed sex NS-NNS dyads, although an e f f o r t was made to c o n t r o l f o r sex as much as p o s s i b l e given the l i m i t e d s i z e of the NNS p o p u l a t i o n . M a t e r i a l s D e s c r i p t i o n of Tasks Two tasks were chosen, both of which were considered as one-way t a s k s . The f i r s t task was a p i c t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k . One member of the dyad was given a set of 20 c o l o r photographs glued onto a sheet of cardboard to form a g r i d of p i c t u r e s . The second member of the dyad was given an i d e n t i c a l s e t of 20 photographs but these were cut out and p l a c e d i n an envelope. The su b j e c t with the completed g r i d of photographs was asked to i n s t r u c t h i s / h e r partner to arrange the photographs i n the same order as they appeared on the master cardboard sheet. The second task, o r i g i n a l l y used by Yule (1979, 1981) and more r e c e n t l y adopted by Avery, E h r l i c h and Yo r i o (1985) to study prosody i n FT d i s c o u r s e , was a p i c t u r e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n t a s k . One member of the dyad was given a sheet of paper d i v i d e d i n t o s i x t e e n squares i n which o b j e c t s were drawn. The other member of the dyad was given a sheet of paper which had the same s i x t e e n square g r i d but without any o b j e c t s drawn. The NS su b j e c t with the completed sheet was asked to d i r e c t h i s / h e r NNS p a r t n e r to draw the same o b j e c t s i n the c o r r e c t l o c a t i o n on the blank sheet. Appendix 'B' c o n t a i n s samples of the f i r s t and second task. Procedure The tasks were administered i n a r e c o r d i n g s t u d i o i n the language l a b at the Kansai U n i v e r s i t y of Fo r e i g n S t u d i e s . For the NS-NS dyads, i n s t r u c t i o n s w r i t t e n i n Japanese were g i v e n to a l l s u b j e c t s upon e n t e r i n g the r e c o r d i n g s t u d i o . The s u b j e c t s were asked to read the i n s t r u c t i o n s and then d i s c u s s the tasks to make sure they understood what they were supposed to do. They were then t o l d to have f i v e to ten minutes of f r e e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n order to get to know t h e i r p a r t n e r . The re s e a r c h e r l e f t the room and went to the a d j o i n i n g room to switch on the tape to r e c o r d t h i s i n i t i a l t r a n s a c t i o n . The sub j e c t s were l e f t alone to converse and at no time d i d they see the r e s e a r c h e r d u r i n g t h i s warm-up e x e r c i s e . At the end of t h i s p e r i o d , the res e a r c h e r brought i n the f i r s t task and asked one of the s u b j e c t s to tu r n h i s c h a i r around so that he/she could not see h i s / h e r partner when completing the task. T h i s procedure was adopted s i n c e a p a r t i t i o n or screen was not a v a i l a b l e f o r use as a way of bre a k i n g the v i s u a l contact between p a r t i c i p a n t s . Of course, t h i s meant that the p a r a - l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s of the 34 i n t e r a c t i o n were not s t u d i e d . The s u b j e c t s were a l l o w e d t o complete the t a s k f o r t e n m i n u t e s and a t t h a t time the r e s e a r c h e r once a g a i n e n t e r e d t h e room and c o l l e c t e d the m a t e r i a l s from the f i r s t t a s k and a d m i n i s t e r e d the m a t e r i a l s f o r the second t a s k . Then, the r e s e a r c h e r l e f t t he room and r e t u r n e d t o the a d j o i n i n g r e c o r d i n g room t o t u r n on the tape r e c o r d e r . The o r d e r i n which the t a s k s were completed was based on p a r t i a l c o u n t e r - b a l a n c i n g w i t h o u t complete r a n d o m i z a t i o n i n o r d e r t o ensure t h a t a l l s u b j e c t s completed the l e s s complex t a s k b e f o r e c o m p l e t i n g the more complex t a s k . The rea s o n t h i s p r o c e d u r e was adopted was so t h a t the more complex t a s k ( d r a w i n g t a s k ) d i d not i n f l u e n c e the s u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t i o n i n 2 t h e l e s s complex t a s k (photo g r i d ) . The photo g r i d t a s k w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o h e r e a f t e r as t a s k 1 and the drawing t a s k as t a s k 2 . The p r o c e d u r e f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g the t a s k s t o the NNS-NS dyads was i d e n t i c a l t o the procedure used w i t h the NS-NS dyads e x c e p t a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n o r a l l y i n Japanese by t h e r e s e a r c h e r s i n c e some of the NNS s u b j e c t s were not a b l e t o r e a d Japanese k a n j i . The s u b j e c t s were g i v e n 10 m i n u t e s t o d i s c u s s the t a s k s and i n t r o d u c e themselves p r i o r t o b e g i n n i n g the f i r s t t a s k . The procedure f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g and r e c o r d i n g t h e t a s k s was the same as i n the NS-NS r e c o r d i n g s e s s i o n s . 2 . T h i s t u r n e d out t o be a s e r i o u s f l a w i n the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n s i n c e the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t a s k s s h o u l d have been c o m p l e t e l y randomized. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e s t u d y c o u l d not be r e r u n due t o c o n s t r a i n t s of ti m e and a v a i l a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s . 35 Chapter IV Data A n a l y s i s Once a l l the r e c o r d i n g s were completed, the tapes were t r a n s c r i b e d . The f i r s t minute of each task was not i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s and the next 5 minutes of speech were an a l y z e d . From the o r i g i n a l 12 NS-NS dyads, 4 dyads were randomly chosen as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h i s NS p o p u l a t i o n and used as a b a s e l i n e corpus to conduct s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons with the the three NS-NNS dyads. Table 1.0 below i l l u s t r a t e s the s u b j e c t s ' grouping and amount of data t r a n s c r i b e d : TABLE 1.0 TRANSCRIPTION TIMES DYADS NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INTERMEDIATE NNS NS-LOW NNS N (4) (4) (4) (4) Task 1 5 min 5 min 5 min 5 min Task 2 5 min 5 min 5 min 5 min T o t a l 10 min 10 min 10 min 10 min T o t a l T r a n s c r i p t i o n = 40 minutes A l l t r a n s c r i p t i o n s were checked by two female Japanese n a t i v e speakers and any ' e r r o r - f u l l ' u t t e r a n c e s were marked. Due to c o n s t r a i n t s of time and money i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o u l d not be a s c e r t a i n e d . Once a l l the data had been checked i t was then entered i n t o a microcomputer using Wordstar, a w e l l known word processor and a l l i n t e r a c t i o n s were coded u s i n g the 32 dependent v a r i a b l e s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 2. Frequencies were then c a l c u l a t e d f o r each dependent v a r i a b l e by running a software concordance program (The Word Pl u s , CPM 2.2) on each of the 32 document f i l e s comprising the NS-NS and NS-NNS data corpus f o r both Task 1 (16 document f i l e s ) and Task 2 (16 document f i l e s ) . T h i s y i e l d e d f r e q u e n c i e s f o r a l l 32 dependent v a r i a b l e s across both t a s k s , a t o t a l word count f o r each f i l e , i n d i v i d u a l f r e q u e n c i e s f o r each word used and a type token r a t i o . Using the T - u n i t as a b a s e l i n e measure, the frequency of each dependent v a r i a b l e was converted to a percentage i n r e l a t i o n to the number of T - u n i t s i n each data corpus. For example, i n the f i r s t NS-NS dyad i n task 1, there were a t o t a l of 878 words and 102 T - u n i t s y i e l d i n g an average of 5.59 words per T - u n i t . In the same dyad there was a t o t a l of 24 s e l f r e p e t i t i o n s , 12 w i t h i n the same speaker turn and 12 a c r o s s speaker t u r n s , y i e l d i n g a r a t i o of s e l f r e p e t i t i o n s w i t h i n T - u n i t s of 11.77% (24/102=11.77). The same procedure was c a r r i e d out f o r a l l 32 dependent measures y i e l d i n g a r a t i o of the number of instances of a v a r i a b l e to the t o t a l number of T - u n i t s per task f o r each dyad. These r a t i o s were then entered i n t o a s t a t i s t i c a l t a b l e . The f i r s t column coded the f i r s t independent v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y (group codings were NS-NS (1), NS-HIGH NNS (2), NS-INT. NNS (3) and NS-LOW NNS ( 4 ) ) . The remaining 2 columns 37 were made up of the c a l c u l a t e d f r e q u e n c i e s of the second independent v a r i a b l e or repeated measures f a c t o r (task 1-column 2 and task 2- column 3). Table 1.1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s format using the c a l c u l a t e d r a t i o of s e l f r e p e t i t i o n to T-u n i t s i n task 1 and 2 f o r a l l 4 groups: TABLE 1.1 SELF REPETITION GROUP CODING TASK 1 TASK ; 1 1 3.42 23.53 NS-NS DYADS 1 6.47 23.79 1 4.65 17.03 1 5.78 14.51 2 8.06 1 1 .90 2 15.04 27.50 NS-HIGH NNS 2 8.65 13.30 2 7.96 7.97 3 12.45 1 9.49 3 9.67 1 8.84 NS-INT NNS 3 10.20 1 9.40 3 8.48 21 .72 4 11.36 14.56 4 8.99 16.17 NS-LOW NNS 4 18.28 14.19 4 15.67 24.32 38 S i m i l a r t a b l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g each of the 32 dependent measures were c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h i s manner and then run through S t a t f a s t 2.0, a microcomputer s t a t i s t i c a l package u s i n g the Anova with Repeated Measures program (see Huitema, 1980 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s s t a t i s t i c ) . The output from t h i s program gave F r a t i o s f o r f a c t o r s A ( p r o f i c i e n c y ) , B (task) and the i n t e r a c t i o n of A X B as w e l l as mean scores and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the 4 groups coded under Factor A (NS-NS, NS-HIGH NNS, NS-INT NNS, NS-LOW NNS). A s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of .05 was s e t f o r t e s t i n g the hypotheses d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r i n Chapter 2. I f a s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o was found f o r f a c t o r A, post hoc comparisons were c a r r i e d out u s i n g the S c h e f f e t e s t to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups (see Shavelson, 1982 f o r the use of the Scheffe t e s t i n f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n s ) . If s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s were found f o r f a c t o r B, t h i s i n d i c a t e d t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e across both task types f o r the s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e being analyzed s i n c e t h i s v a r i a b l e had o n l y two l e v e l s . F i n a l l y , i f a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was found f o r p r o f i c i e n c y and task (A X B), post hoc t e s t s were c a r r i e d out across marginal means f o r a l l four groups. The r e s u l t i n g s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s w i l l be reported i n Chapter V. 39 Chapter 5 R e s u l t s In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , a summary of the r e s u l t s of the data a n a l y s i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the three main hypotheses presented i n Chapter 2. F i r s t , the gene r a l f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d to each of the main hypotheses w i l l be r e p o r t e d , f o l l o w e d by the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of the ANOVA t e s t s and post hoc comparisons f o r the v a r i a b l e s measuring m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n input ( r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s ) and the composite v a r i a b l e s measuring communication s t r a t e g i e s and r e p a i r . Secondly, the r e s u l t s of the ANOVA t e s t s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s which made up these composite v a r i a b l e s w i l l be taken up i n the subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . A complete summary of the ANOVA t a b l e s f o r a l l 32 dependent v a r i a b l e s can be found i n Appendix C. Summary of R e s u l t s f o r Main Hypotheses The f i r s t main hypothesis which p r e d i c t e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s would emerge i n the complexity of in p u t d i r e c t e d to l e a r n e r s a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y was p a r t i a l l y supported. S i g n i f i c a n t F values were obtained f o r the f o u r measures of length of T - u n i t (F=3.64), T - u n i t s per tu r n (F=10.94), words per minute (F=5.18), and the type token r a t i o (F=6.51). Post hoc comparisons conducted using the Sche f f e procedure r e v e a l e d 40 s i g n i f i c a n t between group d i f f e r e n c e s f o r three of these f o u r v a r i a b l e s with the exce p t i o n of the f i r s t measure of Words per T-Unit. When a weighted Scheffe t e s t was used to compare the mean of the pooled NS-NS and NS-High NNS dyads wi t h the two other lower p r o f i c i e n c y NS-NNS groups f o r t h i s l a t t e r v a r i a b l e , t h e r e was a s t r o n g , although not s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d , i n d i c a t i n g there was c o n s i s t e n t v a r i a t i o n i n T - u n i t l e n g t h when the fou r groups were c o l l a p s e d i n t o two l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y . S i m i l a r l y , two other measures of i n p u t , s p e c i f i c a l l y , T - u n i t s per t u r n and the type token r a t i o a l s o showed a s i g n i f i c a n t t rend i n d i c a t i n g g r e a t e r s y n t a c t i c and l e x i c a l complexity i n the NS-NS corpus when compared to the three NS-NNS groups. Tables 1.2 through 1.9 show the means across both tasks and r e s u l t s of the Scheffe t e s t s f o r each input v a r i a b l e . In a d d i t i o n to p a i r wise comparisons, the r e s u l t s f o r the f o l l o w i n g s i x weighted Scheffe t e s t s are shown at the bottom of each t a b l e : 1) the mean of the NS-NS dyads compared to weighted mean of the 3 NS-NNS dyads 2) the mean of the NS-NS & NS-High NNS dyads compared to mean of the NS-Int NNS and NS-Low NNS dyads and 3) the mean of the NS-NS dyads compared to the weighted mean of the NS-Int NNS & NS-Low NNS dyads 4) the mean of the NS-High NNS dyads compared to the mean of the NS-Int NNS and NS-Low NNS dyads 5) the mean of the NS-Low NNS dyads compared to the mean of NS-High NNS and NS-Int NNS dyads and 6) the mean of the NS-Low NNS compared to the othe r 3 groups (NS-NS, NS-High NNS, NS-Int NNS). The o v e r a l l mean (average from task 1 (S) & 2 (C)) f o r each of the 4 groups i s l i s t e d at the top of each Scheffe t a b l e : 41 TABLE 1.2 Words Per T-Unit s = Simplex Task 1 C = Complex Task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 3.18 .21 C 3.85 1.19 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 3.33 .05 C 3.42 .24 4 NS-INT NNS S 2.90 .31 c 2.82 .28 4 NS-LOW NNS s 3.05 .73 c 2.91 .35 4 TABLE 1 .3 Scheffe Test Group NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NN Group No. 1 2 3 4 Mean S & C 3.52 3.38 2.86 2.98 1 .60 2.81 2.30 2 2.21 1.70 3 .51 1 - 2/3/4 = 2.33 1/2 - 3/4 = 3.19 . 1 - 3/4 = 2.95 2 - 3/4 = 2.26 4 - 2/3 = .69 4 -1/2/3= 1.43 p<.05 ( .05, 3,1 2) 42 TABLE 1.4 T-Units Per Turn GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 1.49 C 1 .50 .24 .08 NS-HIGH NNS S 1 .52 C 1.56 .17 .16 NS-INT NNS S 1 .76 C 1 .81 .35 .11 NS-LOW NNS S 1 .57 C 1.74 TABLE 1.5 Schef f e Test .17 .06 Group NS -NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS -LOW NNS Group No. 1 2 3 4 Mean S & C 1 .49 1.54 1.78 1 .65 1 1.00 5.80 3.20 2 ** 4.80 2.20 3 2.60 1 - 2/3/4 = 4.08* 112 - 3/4 =5.65 1 - 3/4 ** = 5.20 2 - 3/4 * 4.04 4 - 2/3 = .23 4-1/2/3 = 1.14 p<.05 p<.01 43 TABLE 1.6 Words Per Minute GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 1 44 131 1 95 1 24 182 1 29, 118 95 94 80 25 80 95 30 60 65 48 24 27 33 1 1 12 23 1 1 47 07 1 3 07 51 64 1 1 65 4 4 4 4 TABLE 1.7 Schef f e Test Group NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS Group No. 1 2 3 Mean S & C 138.37 160.03 156.13 NS-LOW NNS 4 107.13 1 2 3 1 .44 1.19 .26 2.08 3.53 3.27 1 - 2/3/4 = .22 1/2 - 3/4 = 1.66 1 - 3/4 = .52 2 - 3/4 = 2.19 4 - 2/3 = 3.92* 4 -1/2/3=3.63* p<.05 44 TABLE 1.8 Type Token R a t i o GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S .60 .04 C .46 .04 4 NS-HIGH NNS s .47 .06 c .44 .06 4 NS-INT NNS s .52 .08 c .44 .02 4 NS-LOW NNS s .51 .08 c .45 .05 4 TABLE 1.9 Sch e f f e Test Group NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS Group No. 1 2 3 4 Mean .53 .46 .48 .48 k k 1 4.43 3.16 3.16 2 1.26 1 .26 3 0 k*k -k 1 - 2/3/4 = 4.39 1/2 - 3/4 = 1.34 1 - 3/4 = 3.65 2 - 3/4 = 1 . 46 4 - 2/3 = ...73 4 -1 /2/3 = .78 *p<.05 **p<.01 45 I n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s between the fou r groups were found f o r the two composite measures of in t r a l a n g u a g e (F=3.42) and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s (F=4.69). The f a c t t h a t the NS-NS b a s e l i n e data was almost v o i d of any in t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s most l i k e l y accounted f o r the f i r s t of these i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s . For the second composite v a r i a b l e of r e p a i r , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the frequency of r e p a i r between the NS-NS and the NS-low NNS dyads. S i m i l a r l y , when a weighted S c h e f f e t e s t was used t o compare the frequency of r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s i n the NS-NS dyads with the three NS-NNS dyads, a s t r o n g trend emerged i n d i c a t i n g t h at more r e p a i r o c c u r r e d when NSs were a d d r e s s i n g NNSs, although t h i s r e s u l t d i d not reach the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table 2.1 shows the means and Table 2.2 shows the r e s u l t s of the Scheffe t e s t f o r the composite v a r i a b l e of intralanguage s t r a t e g i e s : TABLE 2.1 Intralanguage S t r a t e g i e s GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-INT NNS NS-HIGH NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C .00 .37 .79 2.36 3.21 4.83 5.44 5.55 .00 .47 .78 2.47 3.32 3.13 4.55 4.35 4 4 4 4 46 TABLE 2.2 Intralanguage-Scheffe Test Group NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS Group No. 1. 2 3 4 Mean S & C .18 1.57 4.02 5.50 75 2.10 2.90 2 3 1 .34 2.15 .81 1 - 2/3/4 = 2.36 2 - 3/4 = 2.02 1 & 2 - 3/4 = 3.01 1 - 3/4 = 2.89 4 - 2/3 = 1.71 4 - 1 / 2 / 3 =2.40 p< .05 The second d i f f e r e n c e i n the frequency of r e p a i r across groups i n d i c a t e d that s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n e g o t i a t i o n work occured when NSs were i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs, and e s p e c i a l l y w i t h lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s . T h i s r e s u l t i s c o n s i s t e n t with p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on FT which has r e p o r t e d t h i s to be the most n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between NS-NS d i s c o u r s e and NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . Among the s i x v a r i a b l e s which made up t h i s composite v a r i a b l e of r e p a i r , only the frequency of c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests showed an i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e on the between groups f a c t o r of p r o f i c i e n c y (F=3.58). A post hoc comparison of group means using the Scheffe procedure, however, r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e i t h e r across 47 groups or between the NS-NS mean with NS-NNS weighted mean. Table 3.1 shows the means f o r the composite v a r i a b l e of r e p a i r across Task 1 and Task 2 while Table 3.2 shows the r e s u l t s of S c h e f f e t e s t : TABLE 3.1 REPAIR STRATEGIES DYADS N SIMPLE TASK 1 COMPLEX TASK 2 NS -NS (4) 7 .56 (SD 4 .15) 1 4 .49 (SD 8 .93 ) NS -HIGH NNS (4) 1 3 .23 (SD 4 .63 ) 20 .44 (SD 3 .78 ) NS -INT NNS (4) 1 1 .84 (SD. 4 .42 ) 1 9 .77 (SD 3 .60) NS -LOW NNS (4) 1 5 .53 ( SD 3 .76) 25 .83 (SD 3 .67) TABLE 3.2 Scheffe Test Group NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NN. Group No. 1 2 3 4 Mean 11.03 16.84 15.81 20.68 1 2.24 1.84 3.72* 2 .40 1.48 3 1 .87 1 - 2/3/4 = 3.19 1/2 - 3/4 = 2.35 1 - 3/4 = 3.21 2 - 3/4 = .63 4 - 2/3 = 1.90 4 - 1/2/3= 2.89 p< .05 48 The f i r s t of these two t a b l e s (3.1) r e v e a l s that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work across both t a s k s . A comparison of the mean scores f o r a l l groups on the composite v a r i a b l e of r e p a i r showed t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n e g o t i a t i o n work was needed to complete the more complex drawing task (task 2) than the simpler p i c t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n task (task 1 ) . The mean number of r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s i n T - u n i t s f o r a l l groups across both tasks was 12.04 (SD 4.85) on task 1 and 20.14 (SD 6.43) on task 2. Table 3.3 below shows the r e s u l t s of the ANOVA t e s t f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e : TABLE 3.3 REPAIR: A n a l y s i s of Variance E f f e c t SS df MS F P A 378.85 3 126.28 4.6 *< .05 E r r o r 1 322.94 1 2 26.91 B 523.91 1 523.91 24.6 ***<.001 A X B 1 4.09 3 4.70 .2 ns >.05 E r r o r 2 255.55 1 2 21 .30 S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were obtained f o r 17 of the 28 dependent v a r i a b l e s which measured i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s . In other words, the second major hypothesis which p r e d i c t e d t h a t a higher frequency of r e d u c t i o n , communication and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s would be used on the more complex task was p a r t i a l l y supported. For the 4 in p u t v a r i a b l e s , both the 49 r a t e of speech and the type token r a t i o were found t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r a cross both t a s k s . The f i r s t of these d i f f e r e n c e s ( r a t e of speech) was p r e d i c t e d to occur because of the complexity of the 2nd t a s k . On the other hand, the type token r a t i o f o r the simpler p i c t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n task (task 1) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the more complex drawing task (task 2), a r e s u l t which c o n t r a d i c t e d the o r i g i n a l h y p o thesis r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i v e complexity of the two t a s k s used i n t h i s study. In a d d i t i o n to the above d i f f e r e n c e s measuring the complexity of input across t a s k s , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found f o r the composite v a r i a b l e s of t o p i c encoding s t r a t e g i e s , i nterlanguage s t r a t e g i e s and r e p a i r . Table 4.1 below shows the mean scores f o r a l l groups f o r the 4 input v a r i a b l e s while Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show the mean scores f o r the t o p i c encoding s t r a t e g i e s and the 3 composite v a r i a b l e s which measured i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s : TABLE 4.1 FORMAL REDUCTION STRATEGIES Independent Var. Task 1 Task 2 F 1) Words/T-Unit 3.12 (SD .40) 3.25 (SD .72) .39 ns 2) T - u n i t s / T u r n 1.58 (SD .24) 1.65 (SD .16) .65 ns 3) Wds/Minute 160.44 (SD 41.71) 120.39 (SD 24.87) 24.12 ** 4) Type token .52 (SD .08) .46 (SD .04) 9.27 ** ** *** p < .01 p < .001 50 TABLE 4.2 INTERACTIONAL MODIFICATIONS Topic Encoding S t r a t e g i e s Independent Var. Task 1 Task 2 F a) D e c l a r a t i v e s 85.77 (SD 4.41) 76.80 (SD 6.26) 22.92 b) Questions 13.79 (SD 4.25 ) 20 .44 (SD 5.75) 19.27 c) Imperatives .44 (SD .61) 2.76 (SD 2.46) 9.97 ** *** p < .01 p < .001 TABLE 4.3 Composite V a r i a b l e s Independent Var. Task 1 Task 2 F 2) Interlanguage 16.87 (SD 5.50) 28.51 (SD 6 .42 ) 44 .38 3) Intralanguage 2.36 (SD 3.37) 3.2 (SD 3.39) .36 ns 4) Repair 12.04 (SD 4.85) 20.13 (SD 6.43) 24.60 ** *** p < .01 p < .001 The t h i r d major hypothesis which p r e d i c t e d there would be a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between task and p r o f i c i e n c y was not supported. Out the 32 dependent v a r i a b l e s , only the four v a r i a b l e s of s e l f r e p e t i t i o n a c r o s s speaker turns (F=3.00), t o t a l s e l f r e p e t i t i o n (F=2.98), comprehension checks (F=2.79) and words per minute (2.67) showed a trend towards 51 an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . The n o n s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between these two independent v a r i a b l e s may have r e s u l t e d from the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c e l l s i z e s (n=4), thereby i n c r e a s i n g the amount of the e r r o r term when c a l c u l a t i n g between group d i f f e r e n c e s and consequently reducing the chances of f i n d i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n . A s i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n c o u l d a l s o be made re g a r d i n g the l a c k of c o n s i s t e n t between groups d i f f e r e n c e s on the f i r s t f a c t o r of p r o f i c i e n c y . Once again, the small c e l l s i z e s r e q u i r e d that d i f f e r e n c e s between groups would have had to be e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y l a r g e i n order to y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . The f a c t t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r the second v a r i a b l e of task complexity (n=16) suggests that a more robust sampling would have i n c r e a s e d the chances of f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t 'between group' d i f f e r e n c e s on the f i r s t independent v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y . Summary of R e s u l t s For I n d i v i d u a l V a r i a b l e s As was p o i n t e d out i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , the most s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t of t h i s study was the d i f f e r e n c e found i n the amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work across both t a s k s . In p a r t i c u l a r , a l l 4 groups used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more in t e r l a n g u a g e and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on task 2 (the more complex task) than on task 1. T h i s was r e f l e c t e d i n sentence l e v e l t o p i c encoding s t r a t e g i e s where the frequency of q u e s t i o n s , d e c l a r a t i v e s and imperatives d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a cross tasks 1 and 2 (See Table 4.2 above). 52 T h i s d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t t h a t almost a l l r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s were encoded as questions i n the form of r e q u e s t s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , comprehension and c l a r i f i c a t i o n checks or r h e t o r i c a l questions designed to e l i c i t v e r i f i c a t i o n of meaning, to i n d i c a t e l e x i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y or to ask a speaker to d e f i n e an unknown word ( d e f i n i t i o n r e q u e s t ) . T h i s l a t t e r s t r a t e g y , however, was used o n l y twice by two i n t e r m e d i a t e NNSs so comparisons a c r o s s tasks c o u l d not be c a r r i e d out. As Table 5.1 shows, f o u r of these r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s were used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more on task 2 than task 1. TABLE 5.1 Repair S t r a t e g i e s Independent Task 1 Task 2 F C l a r i f i c a t i o n Reqs. 8 .78 (SD 4 .21 ) 1 1 .69 (SD 4 .78 ) 7 .97 * *** C o n f i r m a t i o n Check 1 .89 (SD 1 .24) 4 .11 (SD 1 .32 ) 18 .61 Comprehension Check 1 .19 (SD 1 • 41 ) 2 .49 (SD 2 .82 ) 7 .09 V e r i f i c a t i o n .03 (SD .13) .44 (SD .69) 4 .36 ns L e x i c a l U n c e r t a i n t y .08 (SD .18) 1 .09 (SD 1 .77) 5 .86 * D e f i n i t i o n Requests .00 (SD .00 ) .49 (SD .17) ns p < .o5 p .< .01 p < .001 D i f f e r e n c e s i n the amount of r e p a i r across tasks a l s o i n f l u e n c e d the frequency of q u e s t i o n forms speakers used. Because of the g r e a t e r number of c o n f i r m a t i o n and comprehension checks on the more complex task, there was a 53 corr e s p o n d i n g d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of p h o n o l o g i c a l l y marked ques t i o n s (Question B) i n task 1 and 2. The frequency of o t h e r q u e s t i o n forms, however, d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y vary a c r o s s tasks or p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . Table 5.2 shows the means f o r the s i x d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n forms i n task 1 and 2 and the F value s from the ANOVA t e s t s f o r these v a r i a b l e s : TABLE 5.2 Question Forms Independent Task 1 Task 2 F Ques t i o n A (ka) 2.92 (SD 1 .91 ) 3 .92 (SD 3 .12) .97 ns Q u e s t i o n B (phon) 8.95 (SD 4.27) 1 3 .47 (SD 4 .16) 1 3 .19 ** Question C (kana) .26 (SD .43) .58 (SD .62) 2 .63 ns Question D (WH) .84 (SD .77) 1 .39 (SD 1 .23 ) 2 .63 ns Question E (nan) .18 (SD .29) .40 (SD .57) 1 .57 ns Question F (nani) .58 (SD .67 ) .43 (SD .92 ) .32 ns In a d d i t i o n to the gr e a t e r amount of r e p a i r on task 2, speakers a l s o made t h e i r speech more redundant by employing s i g n i f i c a n t l y more interlanguage s t r a t e g i e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the amount of r e p e t i t i o n both w i t h i n and across speaker t u r n s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r on t h i s second task. S i m i l a r l y , there was a l s o a g r e a t e r number of approximations and r e s t r u c t u r i n g moves on task 2 which suggests t h a t speakers attempted to accommodate f o r the lack of shared r e f e r e n c e by r e c y c l i n g t h e i r message e i t h e r by g l o s s i n g 54 t h e i r o r i g i n a l e x p l a n a t i o n s with more s i m p l i f i e d vocabulary or by breaking down d i f f i c u l t p r o p o s i t i o n a l content i n t o s m a l l e r u n i t s of speech. The amount of other r e p e t i t i o n and paraphrasing, however, d i d not vary across t a s k s . Table 6.1 shows the mean number of i n t e r l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s on task 1 and 2 with the corresponding F value from the ANOVA t e s t s f o r each v a r i a b l e : TABLE 6.1 Interlanguage S t r a t e g i e s Independent Task 1 Task 2 F k~k S e l f W i t h i n Turns 6.27 (SD 3.37) 9.19 (SD 3.41) 9.11 ickk S e l f Across Turns 4.06 (SD 1 .62 ) 9 .22 (SD 3.19) 44.32 kick T o t a l S e l f Rep. 10.32 (SD 3.80) 18.01 (SD 5.27) 46.71 Other R e p e t i t i o n 5.30 (SD 2.64) 5.71 (SD 3.12) .16 ns Paraphrases .87 (SD .82) 1.53 (SD 1.09) 3.87 ns k ~k Approximations .30 (SD .34) 2.05 (SD 1.99) 12.68 R e s t r u c t u r i n g .08 (SD .17) .79 (SD 1.01) 6.84 * * ** *** p < .o5 p < .01 p < .001 U n l i k e the above d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of interlanguage s t r a t e g i e s a c r o s s t a s k s , there was only one intralanguage s t r a t e g y which was used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more on the complex task. T h i s was the f o r e i g n i z i n g of Japanese or E n g l i s h words where e i t h e r NSs or NNSs attempted to accommodate f o r a breakdown i n communication by u s i n g an E n g l i s h word as i f i t were a loan word. For example, d i r e c t i o n a l i n d i c a t o r s such as " r i g h t " or " l e f t " were o f t e n f o r e i g n i z e d u s i n g the Japanese s y l l a b i c p r o n u n c i a t i o n of " r i g h t o and " r e f t o " . The second i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g y of ' l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n ' was used on only f o u r o c c a s i o n s and t h e r e f o r e a comparison of the frequency of t h i s s t r a t e g y across tasks was not c a r r i e d out. T h i s i n d i r e c t l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t almost a l l language d i r e c t e d at the NNS s u b j e c t s was grammatically w e l l formed. T h i s was confirmed by the a n a l y s i s of the r a t i o of e r r o r f r e e T - u n i t s t o t o t a l T - u n i t s i n the data corpus which showed that almost 99.84% of the utterances were judged by two Japanese n a t i v e speakers to be grammatically w e l l formed. The l a s t s t r a t e g y of code s w i t c h i n g , although used more e x t e n s i v e l y i n the NS-low NNS dyads, d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y e i t h e r across tasks or p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . Table 6.2 shows the mean number of intralanguage s t r a t e g i e s i n T - u n i t s on both tasks and the F values f o r the ANOVA t e s t s on these three v a r i a b l e s : TABLE 6.2 Intralanguage S t r a t e g i e s Independent Task 1 Task 2 F F o r e i g n i z i n g .12 (SD .33) .65 (SD .70) 14.05 ** L i t e r a l T r a n s l a t i o n .03 (SD .14) .10 (SD .23) ns Code Switching 2.36 (SD 3.37) 2.52 (SD 2.98) .10 ns *p < .05 A d i s c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s and other r e s u l t s f o l l o w s i n Chapter 6. 56 C h a p t e r 6 C o n c l u s i o n s & I m p l i c a t i o n s How do t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y compare t o p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on FT and do t h e r e s u l t s s u p p o r t o r i n some ways c o n t r a d i c t p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h ? F i r s t , t h e more g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a J a p a n e s e FT r e g i s t e r was c l e a r l y s u p p o r t e d . Many o f t h e f e a t u r e s o f FT r e p o r t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e were e v i d e n t i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s between J a p a n e s e NSs and t h e i r NNS c o u n t e r p a r t s . A l t h o u g h some o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a r y between NS-NS and NS-NNS d y a d s , t h e r e were enough i n s t a n c e s o f v a r i a t i o n w h i c h s u g g e s t t h a t J a p a n e s e NSs d i d accommodate f o r t h e NNS s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y . A s e c o n d and e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t f i n d i n g i s t h a t t h i s a c c o m modation a p p e a r e d t o be t i e d t o t h e p e r c e i v e d p r o f i c i e n c y o f t h e NNS. P o s t hoc S c h e f f e t e s t s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t between g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s f o r 3 o f t h e 4 v a r i a b l e s m e a s u r i n g l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n ( f o r m a l r e d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s ) . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e w e i g h t e d S c h e f f e t e s t s c o m p a r i n g NS-NS means w i t h t h e p o o l e d NS-NNS means f o r t h e s e f o u r v a r i a b l e s i n d i c a t e t h a t J a p a n e s e NSs a d j u s t e d t h e i r s p e e c h when a d d r e s s i n g NNSs i n g e n e r a l and i n 1 p a r t i c u l a r , when a d d r e s s i n g l o w e r l e v e l NNSs. 1. A l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l t s o f p a i r w i s e and w e i g h t e d S c h e f f e t e s t s d i d r e s u l t i n c o n s i s t e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s g r o u p s , a g e n e r a l t r e n d i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n was o b s e r v e d . The r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e c o n d i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s u g g e s t t h a t l a r g e r c e l l s i z e s ( i . e . n = 8) w o u l d most l i k e l y have b e t t e r t e a s e d o u t more c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r t h e f i r s t i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e o f p r o f i c i e n c y . 57 A s i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n can be made f o r the amount of r e p a i r work acr o s s p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found i n the frequency of r e p a i r when the NS-NS corpus was compared to the NS-low NNS dyads. Furthermore, the r e s u l t of the weighted Scheffe t e s t comparing the frequency of r e p a i r i n the NS-NS dyads with the three NS-NNS groups i n d i c a t e s t h a t much more r e p a i r work occurred when NSs were i n t e r a c t i n g with NNSs. As was po i n t e d out e a r l i e r , t h i s f i n d i n g has been c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p l i c a t e d i n previous FT r e s e a r c h and seems to be an o v e r r i d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which d i s t i n g u i s h e s NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n from NS-NS d i s c o u r s e . On the other hand, the l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found f o r the frequency of int e r l a n g u a g e and intralanguage s t r a t e g i e s a c r o s s p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s seems to c o n t r a d i c t p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . A c l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n of t h i s r e s e a r c h r e v e a l s , however, that few s t u d i e s have shown a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the p r o f i c i e n c y of the l e a r n e r and the frequency i n the use of these s t r a t e g i e s (see B i a l y s t o k 1984 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e ) . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n which may account f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s that task complexity may be a more important c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r or t r i g g e r f o r the use of such speech m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The t h i r d major f i n d i n g of t h i s study c l e a r l y supports t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . Out of a t o t a l of 32 dependent v a r i a b l e s measuring both l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s , 18 of these v a r i a b l e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s both t a s k s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the second drawing task turned out to be a f a r more complex task f o r a l l s u b j e c t s to 58 complete. T h i s was r e f l e c t e d i n a g r e a t e r frequency of r e p a i r on the drawing task as w e l l as a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number of i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s . In t h i s l a t t e r category, s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e l f r e p e t i t i o n both w i t h i n and a c r o s s speaker turns and a higher frequency of approximations and r e s t r u c t u r i n g moves were used on the more complex task. Two measures of l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n were a l s o found to d i f f e r a c r o s s t a s k s , s p e c i f i c a l l y , the r a t e of speech which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y slower on the more complex task and the type token r a t i o which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher f o r the l e s s complex t a s k . T h i s l a t t e r r e s u l t c o n t r a d i c t e d the o r i g i n a l hypothesis of t h i s study regarding the r e l a t i v e complexity of the t a s k s . A review of the a c t u a l content of each task, however, r e v e a l s that the greater number of p i c t u r e s used i n the r e c o g n i t i o n task (20 c o l o r p i c t u r e s ) compared to the 11 black & white drawings used i n the second task may account f o r t h i s outcome. The t h i r d major hypothesis which p r e d i c t e d that there would be s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n across the two f a c t o r s of p r o f i c i e n c y and task complexity was not supported. Only four of the 3 2 v a r i a b l e s showed a trend toward an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y , the r a t e of speech (F=2.67), s e l f r e p e t i t i o n across speaker turns (F= 3.00), s e l f r e p e t i t i o n w i t h i n and a c r o s s speaker turns (F=2.98) and c o n f i r m a t i o n checks (F= 2.79). The r e s u l t s f o r the f i r s t of these v a r i a b l e s , the r a t e of speech, i n d i c a t e s that NSs spoke at a s l i g h t l y f a s t e r r a t e when addressing high and intermediate l e a r n e r s on both tasks when compared to the NS-NS corpus. For lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s , however, NSs slowed t h e i r speech, to the p o i n t where a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found when the NS-Low NNS dyads mean r a t e of speech was compared to the three other groups i n t h i s study. The combination of these d i f f e r e n c e s on the f i r s t v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y with the s i g n i f i c a n t l y slower r a t e of speech on the more complex task ( f a c t o r 2) p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n s why there was a trend toward an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . Given the above r e s u l t s , the r e l a t i v e importance of l i n g u i s t i c s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n needs to be reexamined. Long (1982) argues t h a t i t i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s which most l i k e l y f a c i l i t a t e comprehension. However, t h i s study and some of the more recent s t u d i e s which have c o n t r o l l e d f o r v a r i a b l e s i n input i n classroom s e t t i n g s , i n d i c a t e that NS a l t e r a t i o n s to the surface f e a t u r e s of the t a r g e t language are an e s s e n t i a l part of making NS speech more comprehensible to NNSs. (see Long 1985 f o r a review of t h i s i s s u e ) . While i t has been argued that the r a t e of speech i s an important c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r towards f a c i l i t a t i n g such comprehension, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest t h a t l i n g u i s t i c chunking as measured by the number of words per T - u n i t and the number of T-units per t u r n , i s a l s o a common f e a t u r e of t h i s kind of NS accommodation (see Kelch 1985). In f a c t , i n t h i s study, i t was the second of these two measures which was best able to 2. T h i s r e s u l t i s d i f f i c u l t to account f o r given that the r a t e of speech between NSs was slower than when NSs were addr e s s i n g high and i n t e r m e d i a t e NNSs. This was most n o t i c e a b l e on the more complex drawing tas k . 60 tease out d i f f e r e n c e s i n the complexity of input across p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s (see Larsen-Freeman 1983). When such s i m p l i f i c a t i o n f a i l e d to ensure comprehension, then i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s were employed to r e c y c l e the message or r e p a i r a communication breakdown. I t i s t h i s type of n e g o t i a t i o n work or what Gass and Varonis (1985a) r e f e r to as "pushdown sequences" which have been stereotyped i n the l i t e r a t u r e as f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e . As they suggest, a more accurate d e s c r i p t i o n would be to d e s c r i b e FT not as a continuum, but r a t h e r as a detour from the normal flow of d i s c o u r s e where both NS and NNS negotiate the intended meaning u n t i l t h e i r i s a r e s o l u t i o n of the problem and then r e t u r n to the ongoing t o p i c development. The f a c t the n o n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r the v a r i a b l e s measuring i n t e r l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s across p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s w h i l e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r these same v a r i a b l e s a c r o s s tasks suggests that task complexity may be the t r i g g e r f o r a higher frequency i n the use of these s t r a t e g i e s . The q u e s t i o n remains, then, as to what makes one task more d i f f i c u l t than another such that there i s a greater use of these i n t e r a c t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s . To date, the notion of task complexity has been l a r g e l y e x p l a i n e d away by the d i s t i n c t i o n made i n the l i t e r a t u r e over d i f f e r e n c e s between one-way and two-way t a s k s . Long, (1981a) f o r example, claims t h a t more n e g o t i a t i o n work takes p l a c e when le a r n e r s are f o r c e d to exchange i n f o r m a t i o n i n two-way tasks. However, as V a r o n i s and Gass (1985a) r e p o r t and as t h i s study a l s o 61 i n d i r e c t l y shows the opposite may be t r u e . In other words, the absence of shared r e f e r e n c e on a one-way task may n e c e s s i t a t e a g r e a t e r amount of n e g o t i a t i o n work among p a r t i c i p a n t s whereas shared background knowledge, as i s common i n a two-way task, l e s s e n s the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r misunderstanding between speakers. In t h i s sense, a task i n which speakers can draw upon a common 'pool' of background knowledge helps push the c o n v e r s a t i o n forward (see Brown & Yule 1984: 8 1 f f ) . Thus, the p i c t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n task i n t h i s study was f a r simpler f o r the s u b j e c t s to complete s i n c e both p a r t i c i p a n t s had i d e n t i c a l v i s u a l c l u e s from the outset ( i . e . the same photographs). On the other hand, i n the drawing task only one s u b j e c t had the background i n f o r m a t i o n which was to be communicated and f o r t h i s reason a great d e a l more n e g o t i a t i o n work was r e q u i r e d to s u c c e s s f u l l y complete the task. The above o b s e r v a t i o n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e s to the success t h a t l e a r n e r s a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y had i n completing each of the r e s p e c t i v e t a s k s . While both i n t e r m e d i a t e and advanced students were able t o manage both tasks reasonably w e l l , lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s were c l e a r l y not as s u c c e s s f u l i n completing the more complex drawing task. Many of the exchanges i n the NS-LOW NNS dyads were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by frequent communication breakdowns o f t e n r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r the Japanese NS or the NNS being f o r c e d to code switch to E n g l i s h i n order to c a r r y the task forward or i n some cases, both speakers opted f o r message 62 3 abandonment and moved on to the next item i n the t a s k . The f o l l o w i n g i n t e r a c t i o n between a low l e v e l NNS and NS completing the more complex drawing task i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s type of exchange. The NNS i s being d i r e c t e d by the NS to draw a flower: NS: hana kara kuki ga a t t e . ha ga arimasu. From the flower there i s a stem. There i s a stem. NNS: ah so ka. Kaze. Kaze? Ku...Kuki? I see. Wind. Wind? Kuki? (doesn't know meaning) NS: Kuki. Hai. Yes, a stem. NNS: Kuki wa k u k i nan o shimasu ka? A kuki (a stem) a kuki (a stem) what does i t do? NS : Eto hana ga t s u i t e imasu... ue n i . h a i . I t ' s attached to the flower, (the flower i s ) on the top. Ok. NNS: Kuki (doesn't know the meaning), kumori? kuki (stem)? Clouds? NS : Eh chigaimasu. Eto kuki kara ha ha to hana ga.... That's i n c o r r e c t . Ah from the flower NNS: Kuki kara From the f l o w e r . NS : Kuki desu. Ano do i u kana? There's a stem. Ah what can I say? 3. Although there were not s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s f o r the use of these i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s , there was c l e a r l y a higher frequency i n the use of these s t r a t e g i e s i n the NS-low NNS dyads (see Appendix C f o r a comparison of means). 63 NNS: Hana wa.... A flower. NS : Hana wa hana wa kuki n i t s u i t e imasu. The f l o w e r . . . t h e flower has a stem. NNS: Kuki n i t s u i t e imasu. Un so desu ka. There's a stem ( s t i l l does not understand k u k i ) . I see. The i n i t i a l t r i g g e r f o r t h i s pushdown sequence was the NNS's request f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the word kuki or stem. By the l a s t t u r n , i t appears that the NNS understands the meaning, but i n f a c t , t h i s was not the case and t h i s sequence continued f o r another 20 turns u n t i l the NNS chose to abandon t h i s p a r t of the task and move on to another o b j e c t . This type of s t i l t e d , almost p a i n f u l type of n e g o t i a t i o n was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of almost a l l the low NS-NNS exchanges. The above example r a i s e s the important pedagogical q u e s t i o n of how such i n f o r m a t i o n gap tasks can be implemented i n a second language c u r r i c u l u m and at what l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y can l e a r n e r s be expected to p r o f i t from such a c t i v i t i e s . While advocates of a communicative c u r r i c u l u m might suggest the use of such tasks even at an elementary l e v e l , i t would appear t h a t l e a r n e r s must have some of the b a s i c mechanics of sentence l e v e l grammar and vocabulary to p r o f i t from engaging i n such a c t i v i t i e s . Aston (1986), f o r example, i n a r e c e n t c r i t i c a l review of the i n p u t s t u d i e s , argues that the u t i l i t y of such tasks i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i m i n i s h e d i f a l l t h a t t r a n s p i r e s i s such r e p e t i t i v e r e p a i r work. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study support such a c r i t i c i s m at l e a s t i n so f a r as i t a p p l i e s to low l e v e l l e a r n e r s being asked to complete tasks which are w e l l beyond t h e i r grammatical competence. An a n c i l l a r y f i n d i n g of t h i s study suggests that r e s e a r c h e r s should be more c a u t i o u s i n g e n e r a l i z i n g the r e s u l t s of FT r e s e a r c h on the E n g l i s h language to other languages. In p a r t i c u l a r , the dependent v a r i a b l e s that have been widely used i n E n g l i s h FT r e s e a r c h may be di s c o u r s e dependent, t h a t i s , they may be a r t i f a c t s of the d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e of the E n g l i s h language (see Anderson 1984 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s i s s u e ) . For example, i n much of the E n g l i s h language FT rese a r c h , the frequency of s e l f r e p e t i t i o n i n NS-NS t a l k has been shown to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than i n NS-NNS t a l k . In t h i s study, however, there was a h i g h e r frequency of s e l f r e p e t i t i o n i n the NS-NS dyads than i n the NS-NNS dyads. This f i n d i n g seems odd, but given the h i g h frequency of back c h a n n e l l i n g and redundancy i n spoken Japanese t h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area (Hinds 1982). For example, i n a study examining the r e l a t i v e frequency of such backchannel and o v e r l a p s i g n a l s i n Japanese and E n g l i s h , Kanatani and Clark (1981) r e p o r t t h a t there was 20% more backchannelling i n Japanese than i n E n g l i s h among b i l i n g u a l Japanese and Americans c o n v e r s i n g on i d e n t i c a l t o p i c s i n a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g . The reasons c i t e d to account f o r t h i s g r e a t e r amount of redundancy i n the Japanese language re v o l v e around d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l f a c t o r s , the most prominent being the 65 c o n s c i o u s show of 'face' i n Japanese s o c i e t y and the use of a formal r e g i s t e r (keigo) even i n everyday t a l k . A second problem i n FT r e s e a r c h which has r e c e i v e d a good d e a l of a t t e n t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n s to the a c t u a l methods and m a t e r i a l s used f o r e l i c i t i n g data from s u b j e c t s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study and many other s i m i l a r s t u d i e s c o u l d be c r i t i c i z e d as being a r t i f a c t s of the instrument used t o e l i c i t d a t a. In d i r e c t i v e n a r r a t i v e types of d i s c o u r s e which are commonly used i n t h i s type of research, i t c o u l d be argued t h a t the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s that are ana l y z e d r e s u l t not from speaker v a r i a b l e s , but r a t h e r from task v a r i a b l e s ( i . e . s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n ) . For t h i s reason, Tarone (1983) has suggested t h a t interlanguage phenomena such as are found i n NS-NNS t a l k or even NNS-NNS t a l k should be seen as a f l u i d continuum c o n s t a n t l y changing with the d i f f e r e n t focus the task r e q u i r e s of the speaker. Data e l i c i t e d from s u b j e c t s i n a c o n t r o l l e d experiment such as t h i s and data taken from n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g s may r e s u l t i n a very d i f f e r e n t p r o f i l e of the l e a r n e r s interlanguage or i n the case of t h i s study, a NS 1s p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to use a s i m p l i f i e d r e g i s t e r . T h i s opens a Pandora's Box, however, because without l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s where v a r i a b l e s can be c o n t r o l l e d , i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e outside of the immediate p o p u l a t i o n being s t u d i e d . Thus, as Tarone quotes Labov, i t i s a c l a s s i c example of the Observers Paradox where e i t h e r the r e s e a r c h e r weaves a web around the o b j e c t to be s t u d i e d or forgoes t h i s to record n a t u r a l 66 spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n s . In L2 r e s e a r c h , there i s c l e a r l y a need f o r more n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d i e s i n order to v e r i f y the more c l i n i c a l approach taken to date ( see Carpenter 1983 as an example of data c o l l e c t i o n i n a n a t u r a l i s t i c environment and W e l l s , 1981 on L1 methodology). A f i n a l q u e s t i o n which t h i s study does not d i r e c t l y address p e r t a i n s to the r e l a t i v e importance of FT r e s e a r c h i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an L2 model of language l e a r n i n g . Krashen (1985) argues that such r e s e a r c h r e v e a l s the importance of comprehensible input i n p r o v i d i n g l e a r n e r s with raw data by which hypotheses about the language can pr o g r e s s and thereby f a c i l i t a t e a c q u i s i t i o n . A weaker v e r s i o n of t h i s argument pl a c e s equal importance on the r o l e of i n t e r a c t i o n which seems to be much more i n l i n e with c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h on L1 language development (see Wells, 1981). A u s e f u l way to c o n c e p t u a l i z e t h i s d i f f e r e n c e has been suggested by Corder(1967: 165) and more r e c e n t l y d i s c u s s e d by Chaudron (1985) where a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between what the l e a r n e r a c t u a l l y hears (input) and what the l e a r n e r a c t u a l l y does with t h i s i n p u t ( i n t a k e ) . I t may w e l l be t h a t raw i n p u t , r e g a r d l e s s of the frequency, does not r e s u l t i n a c q u i s i t i o n u n t i l such a time as the l e a r n e r has a chance to t e s t out the newly a c q u i r e d forms i n a communicative c o n t e x t . Recently, Krashen (1985) has attempted to modify h i s i n i t i a l theory by adding what he c a l l s the output hypothesis which accounts f o r t h i s i n p u t -i n t a k e phenomena. Whether one adopts the strong or weak form of these t h e o r i e s , the r o l e of i n t e r a c t i o n plus m o d i f i e d 67 i n p u t seems to be at the heart of s u c c e s s f u l language l e a r n i n g (see Long 1 9 8 5 ) . The above o b s e r v a t i o n o b v i o u s l y has important consequences f o r classroom p r a c t i c e . F i r s t , i t suggests that second language cu r r i c u l u m s need to be s t r u c t u r e d to provide l e a r n e r s with a much g r e a t e r q u a n t i t y of l i s t e n i n g based i n s t r u c t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n which i s more c l o s e l y t i e d to the l e a r n e r s l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y . Secondly, l e a r n e r s must be g i v e n more o p p o r t u n i t i e s to a c t u a l l y use the t a r g e t language i n meaningful c o n t e x t s . This does not mean memorizing phrases, but r a t h e r c o n s t r u c t i n g s c e n a r i o s which mimic, alth o u g h i m p e r f e c t l y , r e a l language use o u t s i d e the classroom. F i n a l l y , g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n should be addressed to meaning r a t h e r than p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c form which e n t a i l s p r o v i d i n g l e a r n e r s with content more c l o s e l y t i e d to t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and needs. In sh o r t , these are the t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g many of the contemporary approaches to second language t e a c h i n g . T h i s f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y to the importance of t h i s study. The teaching of Japanese and other so c a l l e d " e x o t i c languages" continues to be conducted with 30 year o l d theory and p r a c t i c e both i n North America and Japan. Even more pr o b l e m a t i c , i s those who are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t r a i n i n g t eachers of the language seem to be g e n e r a l l y u n i n t e r e s t e d i n l e a r n i n g about a l t e r n a t e approaches to t e a c h i n g a second language or even i n the research which has spawned such new approaches. T h i s i s most c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n course m a t e r i a l s used f o r te a c h i n g the Japanese language. 68 For the most p a r t , they are p r i m a r i l y l i n g u i s t i c t r e a t i s e s on the language ( o f t e n outdated) or worse, pure grunt and groan audio l i n g u a l mim mem d r i l l f i l l e d books. I t i s high time t h a t teachers of the Japanese language and most i m p o r t a n t l y the t r a i n e r s of these teachers begin to question some of the classroom p r a c t i c e s t h a t are now i n use. Do these p r a c t i c e s conform to what we know about how i n d i v i d u a l s l e a r n a language? The research on f o r e i g n e r t a l k and o t h e r such phenomena i n second language research provide us w i t h a window by which we can measure how our classroom p r a c t i c e s m i r r o r the type of i n t e r a c t i o n s l e a r n e r s encounter o u t s i d e the classroom. In t h i s sense, t h i s study should be seen as an i n i t i a l attempt to provide data on Japanese language a c q u i s i t i o n , an area which i s s t i l l f o r the most p a r t l a r g e l y unexplored. 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Roger. 1984. Second languages: a c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c  p e r s p e c t i v e . Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Aston, Guy. 1986. T r o u b l e - s h o o t i n g i n i n t e r a c t i o n with l e a r n e r s : the more the m e r r i e r ? A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 7, 128-143. Avery, Peter, Susan E h r l i c h and C a r l o s A. Y o r i o . 1985. P r o s o d i c domains i n f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e . In Susan Gass and C a r o l y n Madden (Eds.). Beebe, L e s l i e , M. and Howard G i l e s . 1984. Speech-accommodation t h e o r i e s : a d i s c u s s i o n i n terms of second language a c q u i s i t i o n . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of the  S o c i o l o g y of Language 46: 5-32. Bevan, W.C., and J.A. Steger. 1971. Free r e c a l l and a b s t r a c t n e s s of s t i m u l i . Science 172: 597-599. B i a l y s t o k , E l l e n . 1983. Some f a c t o r s i n the s e l e c t i o n and implementation of communication s t r a t e g i e s . In Claus Faerch and G a b r i e l e Kasper (Eds.). . 1984. S t r a t e g i e s i n interlanguage l e a r n i n g and performance. In A. Davies and C. C r i p p e r (Eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y Press. 70 Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse a n a l y s i s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. Carpenter, C r i s t i n . 1983. "Foreigner t a l k " i n u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e hour appointments. In Nessa Wolfson and E l l i o t Judd (Eds.), S o c i o l i n q u i s t i e s and language a c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Chaudron, C r a i g . 1983. F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n the classroom - an a i d to l e a r n i n g ? In Herbert W. S e l i n g e r and Michael H. Long (Eds.). . 1 985. A method f o r examining the i n p u t / i n t a k e d i s t i n c t i o n . In Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). Crookes, G. 1986. Task c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : a c r o s s -d i s c i p l i n a r y review. T e c h n i c a l Report #4, Center f o r Classroom Centered Research, S o c i a l Science Research I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y of Hawaii at Manoa. Day, R i c h a r d , R. and N. Ann Chenoweth, Ann E. Chun and S t u a r t Luppescu. 1984. C o r r e c t i v e feedback i n n a t i v e -nonnative d i s c o u r s e . Language Learning 34 (2):19-45. Doughty, Ca t h e r i n e , and Teresa P i c a . 1984. Information gap t a s k s : do they f a c i l i t a t e second language a c q u i s i t i o n ? Paper presented at the 18th annual TESOL Conference, Houston, Texas, March 6-11. 71 Duff, P.A. Another look at i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k : t a k i n g task to task. In Richard R. Day (Ed.), T a l k i n g to Learn. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Dulay H., M. Burt and S. Krashen. 1982. Language two. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Freed, B. 1980. T a l k i n g to f o r e i g n e r s vs, t a l k i n g to c h i l d r e n : s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s . In S. Krashen and R. S c a r c e l l a (Eds.), Research i n Second Language  A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Gaies , Stephen, J . 1977. The nature of l i n g u i s t i c input i n formal second language l e a r n i n g : l i n g u i s t i c and communicative s t r a t e g i e s i n ESL t e a c h e r s 1 classroom language. In H.D. Brown, C. Y o r i o & R. Crymes (Eds.), 204-212 Teaching and Learning E n g l i s h as a Second  Language: Trends i n Research and P r a c t i c e . Washington: TESOL. Faerch, Claus and G a b r i e l e Kasper. 1983. S t r a t e g i e s i n Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman. Faerch, Claus, K i r s t e n Haastrup and Robert P h i l l i p s o n . 1984. Learner Language and Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: M u l t i l i n g u a l Matters. 72 Ferguson, C.A. 1971. Absence of copula and the n o t i o n of s i m p l i c i t y : A study of normal speech , baby t a l k , f o r e i g n e r t a l k , and p i d g i n s . In P i d g i n i z a t i o n and  C r e o l i z a t i o n of Languages, D.Hymes (Ed.), 141-150. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. F r a s e r , C., U. B e l l u g i and R. Brown. 1963. C o n t r o l of grammar i n i m i t a t i o n , comprehension, and production. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learning and Verbal Behaviour 2, 121-1 35. G a r d i n e r , J.M. and M.J. Watkins. 1979. Remembering e v e n t f u l and u n e v e n t f u l word p r e s e n t a t i o n s . B u l l e t i n of the  Psychonomic S o c i e t y 13: 108-110. Gass, Susan and Carolyn Madden. 1985. Input and Second  Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Gass, Susan and Evangeline Marios V a r o n i s . 1985. N e g o t i a t i o n of meaning i n non-native speaker-non-native speaker c o n v e r s a t i o n . In Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). . 1 986. V a r i a t i o n i n n a t i v e speaker speech m o d i f i c a t i o n to non-native speakers. Studies i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n 7:37-58 H a l l , John, F. 1982. An i n v i t a t i o n to l e a r n i n g and memory. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. 73 Hatch, Evelyn. 1983. P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s . A second language  p e r s p e c t i v e . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Henzl, V.M. 1979. F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n the classroom. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review of A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s 17: 159-167. Hinds, J . 1982. Japanese c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s . Lingua, 57, 301-326. Huitema, B. 1980. The a n a l y s i s of covariance and  a l t e r n a t i v e s . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kanatani, K. and C. C l a r k e . 1981. Turn-taking i n small group d i s c u s s i o n . Language Laboratory 21, 12-23. Ke l c h , K. M o d i f i e d input as an a i d to comprehension. Studies i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 7, 81-90. Krashen, Stephen. 1985. The input hypothesis: i s s u e s and  i m p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Longman. K o l e r s , Paul, A. and Susan J . B r i s o n . 1984. Commentary: On p i c t u r e s , words, and t h e i r mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learning and Verbal Behavior 23: 105-113. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1983. A s s e s s i n g g l o b a l second language p r o f i c i e n c y . In Herbert W. S e l i n g e r and Michael H. Long (Eds.). 74 Long, M.H. 1981a. Input, i n t e r a c t i o n and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In Native Language and F o r e i g n Language  A c q u i s i t i o n , H. W i n i t z , (Ed.), 259-278. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 1981b. Questions i n f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e . Language Learning 31, 1: 135-157. 1983. L i n g u i s t i c and 'conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies i n Second Language  A c q u i s i t i o n 5 (2 ) : 1 77-1 93. 1984a. Native speaker/non-native speaker c o n v e r s a t i o n and the n e g o t i a t i o n of comprehensible i n p u t . A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s 4 (2): 126-141 1984b. The d e s i g n of classroom second language a c q u i s i t i o n : towards task-based language t e a c h i n g . Manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of Hawaii at Manoa. 1985. Input and second language a c q u i s i t i o n theory. In Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). and Charlene J . Sato. 1983. Classroom f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e : forms and f u n c t i o n s of teachers's q u e s t i o n s . In Herbert W. S e l i g e r and Michael H. Long (Eds.), 268-286 75 and P a t r i c i a A. P o r t e r . 1984. Group work, int 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 . Revised v e r s i o n of a paper presented at the 18th annual TESOL Convention, Houston, Texas, March 6-11, 1984. P a r i b a k h t , Tahereh. 1985. S t r a t e g i c competence and language p r o f i c i e n c y . A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s 6, (2):132-146. P e r k i n s K. and R. Leahy. 1977. Three d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l a n alyses of o b j e c t i v e measures of a t t a i n e d w r i t i n g p r o f i c i e n c y . Department of L i n g u i s t i c s , O c c a s i o n a l  Papers on L i n g u i s t i c s Carbondale:- Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y at Carbondale, 306-317. P i c a , Teresa, and Catherine Doughty. 1985. Input and i n t e r a c t i o n i n the communicative language classroom: a comparison of t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d and group a c t i v i t i e s . In Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). P o r t e r , P a t r i c i a A. 1983. V a r i a t i o n s i n the conversations of a d u l t l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h as a f u n c t i o n of the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . PhD d i s s e r t a t i o n . Palo A l t o : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y . S a int-Jacques, B., S. Ross, and I. Shortreed. 1984. The s o c i a l psychology of l e a r n i n g Japanese: an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of n a t i v e speaker a t t i t u d e s toward non-native speakers of Japanese. Proposal f o r Japan Foundation Research Awards. Tokyo. 76 S c a r c e l l a , R. and C. Higa. 1982. Input and age d i f f e r e n c e s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In S.D. Krashen, R. S c a r c e l l a , and M.H. Long (Eds), 175-201. C h i l d - A d u l t  D i f f e r e n c e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. S e l i n g e r , Herbert W. and Michael H. Long. 1983. Classroom  o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Shavelson, R,J. 1981. S t a t i s t i c a l reasoning f o r the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. Skou t a r i d e s , A. 1981. Nihongo n i okeru f o r e i g n e r t a l k . Nihongo Kyoiku 45:53-62. 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 in t e r l a n g u a g e . Language Learning 30 (2): 417-431. 1983. Some thoughts on the not i o n of 'communication s t r a t e g y ' . In Claus Faerch and G a b r i e l e Kasper (Eds.), 61-74. 1983. On the v a r i a b i l i t y of interlanguage systems. A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s 4 (2):142-163. V a r o n i s , E. and S. Gass. 1982. The c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y of non-n a t i v e speech. Studies i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n 4 ( 2 ) : 1 1 4 - 1 3 6 . 77 . 1 984. Non-native/non-native c o n v e r s a t i o n s : a model f o r the n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning. A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s 6 (1) (pgs. ? ) . We l l s , Gordon. 1981. Learning through i n t e r a c t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y - Press. Yule, G. 1979. P r a g m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d anaphora. Lingua 49: 127-135. . 1981. New, c u r r e n t and d i s p l a c e d e n t i t y r e f e r e n c e . Lingua 55:41-52. 78 APPENDIX 'A 1 79 PLACEMENT TEST (JPN) P a r t I . A. F i l l i n the ( ) w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e p a r t i c l e and the p a r t w i t h a s u i t a b l e form of a v e r b o r a d j e c t i v e , and complete the s e n t e n c e . ,1. A s h i t a t e s u t o ('tav ) ^ g deshoo. ( P r o b a b l y t h e r e w i l l be a t e s t tomorrow.) 2. Ano mise ( 3* ) b i i r u ( eft £-) Ol^V^Ls) mashoo. (Let's- d r i n k beer a t t h a t shop. J 3. S u z u k i - s a n wa kyoo gakkoo (/\ ) c i <•) ^  deshoo. ( P r o b a b l y S u z u k i w i l l n^t come to s c h o o l today.) k. Yuubinkyoku ( IT ) amari Y^i C a r i m a s e n . (The p o s t o f f i c e i s not so f a r away.) 5. T a k u s h i i (Z" ) O k u d a s a i . St^'c. -cj-Q 'n desu. ( P l e a s e go by t a x i . I t i s not near.) 6. Totemo ^^"13' L> f^' ^ "TL. desu. Dakara chittorao ( I t was v e r y d i f f i c u l t . So I d i d n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i t • a t a l l . ) 7. T: Kyoo no k a n j i no t e s u t o wa^-L^M jr<-V^ti oT7" desu ne . S: Sumimasendeshita . Yuube waj^t- < ~r - C) <S" £ -V]--^ ? t l . 'n desu. K u n i k a r a c h i c h i to.nana Ra^Xf'szJ^^L^Z ' n desu. ("You d i d n ' t do very w e l l o n today's k a n j i t e s t , d i d you?" "I'm s o r r y . I d i d n ' t s t u d y l a s t n i g h t . My f a t h e r and mother came (up to see me).) B. Change the f o l l o w i n g sentences a c c o r d i n g to the i n s t r u c t i o n s . 1. Kuruma o kaimasu. a. I would l i k e to.buy an o l d . i n e x p e n s i v e c a r . b. P l e a s e buy a b e a u t i f u l American c a r . c. F a t h e r bought'me a c a r . (Use V-te from.) 2. Yamada.-san wa s e n s e i desu. a. Yamada i s not an E n g l i s h (language) t e a c h e r . b. L a s t y e a r , was Yamada a t e a c h e r , o r a stu d e n t ? c. Yamada was not a good s t u d e n t , but he i s a good "t Q Q. C h 6 I* - f ^ t r i ^ i - * - £A J £ M <KV^O t r c ^ r ^ G t c . nr^ " F i l l i n . t h e b l a n k s w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e p a r t i c l e s wherever necessary, and i f not, put an x i n the b l a n k . wa w i l l not be a c c e p t e d as an answer. 1. mm < )•*«.<•• ) tm'-C' •) < ) " f ta**v 2. ( •-:) ( ) ^ ( ) A ^ t . f c . - . 3. ( ) ^ * L f c w Complete each d i a l o g u s i n g the h i n t s g i v e n w i t h the n e c e s s a r y change.-i. <mm-?) " • Onay I ccrae as>i,t wsek?) . (fflust ccme tOiKiorrow). v . ** ; • (don't mind;if i t is c o l d ) . 3. $ & ; . " ' . .-(should I buy) : . . 81 ($>J) j&^ffcsl ";**, -» causative starting with 5& ' 1. B3^c5A>^ %®?M&frbt!$:!Q£l>tCo ~* honorific expression 2. &!&£%<£>%syft%:£.Xf>t. Lfro -*• passive sentence starting & 3. Xjtf-ytti'&VAfi&V. X ^ - f c ' t f l i ^ S T t . — change to OC 4. r?s*a%-p>bX < fc'l«f>, J i f ^ $ L / i 0 — change direct..quotation to " indirect quotation 5. ?t5$jj-ir£> < ^ « I'fco ~* humble expression 6. a. JlfrfrlZiSZ a ' y t * say every time a happens b takes place b. M^&&rZft< ~ 7. 2 - t v ^ C ^ t i T L S Lfco -* sentence starting'with 8. H $ ? f t | ^ ^ ^ ^ t t . : use .V-oo form 82 " (do not correct KS) 4> & L < £ ft £ fc? C to < * ft £ to (few) Translate into Japanese. 1. When I came to school, I uas in a hurry. Therefore, I left (=forgot) in the train the boo!: that I checked out froes the library. 2. If you really want to learn a foreign language, i t is very important to study the language every day. 3. It is very diff icult to conspare the cultures of Japan and America because they are so different. However, since I'm an American, Japanese culture is more interesting to <r.e. 4. As for the Japanese language, 1 can write better than I can apeak. a r t I. . 8 3 • 1. ••Q&mi M* ( ) o -• • m < ) . (The window is half open.) 2. *>.3#t,#Ji ( ) <A£$0\, •Sat (Let we think about i t a l i t t l e more.) 3. * © A « ' H ( ) ® c .*c { ) -et> (That person is a stan, but he has fessiae characteristics.) 4. 1 2n&KiX'b ( ) $ I K S t . < ^ K c ft (la case I do not cosse back by 12 o'clock, please go to bed.) 5. 3 8 S £ ' B # f S ( ) (I can only speak English and Japanese.) 6. 0 * O ^ t t i f ( ) > ^< t>m ( . : ) H ( (Japanese houses are so expensive I can't buy one no matter how hard I work.) 7. < ) < (We'll start using a kanji dictionai-y next week, so please buy i t in advance.) 8. ^ H t t S t f ( ) c ( . . . - . ) « - 3 # (It is l ikely to rain today. You'd better bring your urabrella,) 9. ^ 5'^ < ) &"C J T C < * : £ K -..at . s (Please come after the class is over.) (When I.was about to get on a train, the door closed.) P a r t TV. 84 I. c c © £ ® c . (f&fts/tefc & j •oil .... •;. 53* S ft1 4. - T ^ ^ ' / v l ? &3&<5>/V3us) •5t> © • 6. r&o^rau- i : - ; ^ - ( S i s f c / ^ ^ U , f c / ^ & , l ' * ^ i ( f c ) - c i ^ You call Professor Yaaada who was your adviser at the university. 1. First his wife answers. Then, you speak to kin; 2.%>^&*o 3.MS>-you would like to have # (reunion) and would like to invite him. You ask hire his convenient day. my 4. \£fr(D$& — aad you continue the conversation referring to his recent work of translation. 5. You say you will call him again about details. 6. &&">&-^  1. 2. tote L> : 3. 4. 5. 6. PART I S e l e c t the word which best f i t s i n t o the blank spaces. P l e a s e mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (D (a) ttz (b) (c) frttft (d) tr (a) (b) (0 (d) © (a) (b) (0 (d) (a) (b) fi.ti.li (c) (d) (a) %t ft»C (b) (c) t e c (d) © (a) (b) (0 (d) CD (a) (b) (0 (d) © (a) (b) ^ < £ (0 (d) © (a) (b) (c) (d) (a) 04> ft (b) (0 (d) PART I I S e l e c t the word which best f i t s i n t o the blank spaces. N o t i c e t h a t not a l l the words g i v e n i n the answer p o o l w i l l be a p p r o p r i a t e . P l e a s e use the ANSWER SHEET. CD W/lSEbT^Tfrlgfr-?*: © fcfcUi'>U^rt£-?T^fc0 f i t , * o ® _ l _ f ^ s <c©£©^£ ® fcfcU*. *-ti-^tBT< (a) (e) ffcfc-tJ-fc (i) irt>^ fa) (0) #*l<5 (b) fcfcU* (f) (j) (n) W S i f t * : (c) frtz.L<<D (o) f T (s) tffti* (d) 't>tzb& (h) & ® £ A , 0 (l) ^ y ^ f t (P) (t) y|A s nc 88 PART I I I L i s t e n t o the t a p e , then w r i t e down the words t h a t f i t i n t o the b l a n k spaces i n ROMANJI. P l e a s e use the ANSWER SHEET. Dictation Hfc© J n , t \ < 5 i , frft*)%Ll^ztt£k^*>h?^t?o © A N S W E R S H E E T Name_ PART I. CD © © CD ® © ® PART II. CD ® © © CD © © ® ® ® PART III. CD © (3) © S e l e c t the word which best rit:; i n t o the blank space::. Please murk your uns-wor:-. on the ANSWER SHEET. CD (a) tiz lb) (c) frfs.<0 (d) tt © (a) U^t (b) tifrb (0 (d) © (a) (b) (0 •tf-t-tf A, (d) (2 (a) (b) ftti.it (0 td) O (a) ** Oic (b) (c) (d) © (a) * n u (b) (0 -tnu (d) CD (a) (b) ^,1*9 (0 (d) ® (a) (b) I' < h (c) (d) i-n © (a) (b) tit) (c) t>© (d) (0 (a) *o (b) (c) (d) PA KT I.I S e l e c t the word which best f i t s i n t o the blank space;-.. Notice tht ' i 1 / not a l l the uords given i n the answer pool w i l l be a p p r o p r i a t e . Please use the ANSWER SHEET. ©flii©BBaa> t>tz. Ui^Sicjfc-?-ei,--/:. j p 7 i ' f < 3 5 ; i ) ) < T ^ t t i o o > T @ *© :F©:ka;^7><&-,T£'t> _ _ ® _ _ B i i i c i i ? / i . -eo co (a) b£ UA< (i) ttt'/h (b) fc.fcUi (f) U s u i ; (J) * I J T (n) (r) jgnfc (c) fcfcL© (83 i> & 2 A- II (W otf>T lo) Tfc?T (s) tffti' (d) fc>/cL£ , (W i ' S H O (I) » y * f T (P) £ © * (t) /hStf 91 A P P E N D I X ' B ' $ Ik 1 \ 1 / 1 A : Diagram Used in the Experiment 9 4 APPENDIX ' C 95 ANOVA TABLES FOR ALL VARAIABLES FORMAL REDUCTION STRATEGIES WORDS PER T-UNIT EFFECT SS d f MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 2 . 3 4 7 7 2 . 5776 .1 445 .81 38 3 1 2 1 3 7826 21 48 1 445 271 3 3 .643 .391 .734 .0442 .5494 .5536 E r r o r 2 4 . 4 3 2 4 1 2 3694 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex t a s k 1 C = Complex t a s k 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 3 .1825 .2095 C 3 .8500 1.1891 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 3 .3300 .0503 C 3 .4200 .2345 4 NS-INT NNS S 2 . 9025 .3097 c 2 . 8175 .2764 4 NS-LOW NNS s 3 .0475 .7268 c 2 . 9125 .3472 4 96 T-UNITS PER TURN EFFECT SS df MS F P A .3948 3 .1316 10.936 .001 3 E r r o r 1 . 1 444 12 .0120 B .0371 1 .0371 .646 .4422 A x B .0282 3 .0094 .164 .91 59 E r r o r 2 .6892 12 .0574 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 c = Complex task. 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 1.4875 .2380 C 1.4975 .0750 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 1.5175 .1 692 C 1.5625 .1 556 4 NS-INT NNS S 1.7550 .3451 C 1.8050 .1121 4 NS-LOW NNS S 1.5700 .1 645 C 1.7375 .0634 4 97 WORDS PER MINUTE EFFECT SS df MS Error 1 B A x B Error 2 13950.1000 10775.9300 12830.8100 4251 .0900 6382.6000 3 4650.0200 12 897.9950 1 12830.8100 3 1417.0300 12 531.8833 5.1 78 24.123 2.664 01 59 ,0006 ,0948 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 1 44 1 31 . 1 95 1 24, 1 82 1 29 1 1 8 95 942 4 8000 2500 8000 9500 3000 6000 6500 48.4700 24.0671 27.1270 33.0659 1 1 .5088 12.6380 23.1073 1 1 .6475 98 TYPE TOKEN RATIO EFFECT SS d f MS A E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 ,0231 ,01 42 ,0496 ,01 07 ,0642 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 .0077 .001 2 .0496 .0036 .0054 6.51 1 9.268 .667 0075 01 00 5909 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C s C s c 5950 4600 4725 4350 5225 4375 5050 4475 041 2 0356 0562 0592 081 4 0206 081 0 0538 4 4 4 4 99 TOPIC ENCODING STRATEGIES DECLARATIVES EFFECT SS d f MS E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 233.4150 287.7820 607.7840 40.0595 318.2100 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 77.8050 23.9818 607.7840 13.3532 26.5175 3.244 22.920 .504 0597 0007 6900 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 88.4475 83.1100 83.6350 75.5250 85.9000 74.8000 84.1525 73.8350 5.9056 9.2046 4.4841 4.6669 3.400 2.1850 3.44 3.5059 4 4 4 4 QUESTIONS EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 210.7970 308.0270 354.1130 27.6557 3 1 2 1 3 70.2656 25.6689 354.1130 9.2186 2.737 .0892 19.275 .0012 .502 .6912 E r r o r 2 220.4650 1 2 18.3721 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 10.7975 5.4619 C 14.2850 6.8853 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 14.2075 4.5585 C 21 . 5700 4.9274 4 NS-NS INT NNS S 13.9975 3.4558 C 22.2575 3.7646 4 NS-NS LOW S 15.3550 3.5210 C 22.8575 3.9183 4 101 IMPERATIVES EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B .94.82 40.7585 43.1288 2.5461 3 1 2 1 3 .3161 3.3965 43.1288 .8487 093 .9579 9.972 .0082 .196 .8950 E r r o r 2 51.8980 1 2 4.3248 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-NS HIGH NS-NS INT NS-LOW NNS S C S c s c s c 7575 2225 ,4075 5725 ,1 025 9450 4900 3050 0892 4880 4735 51 1 0 2050 8044 3541 7532 4 4 4 4 QUESTION FORMS QUESTION A (ka) EFFECT SS d f MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 13.5624 58.0273 7.9900 30.2390 3 1 2 1 3 4.5208 4.8356 7.9900 10.0797 4558 .971 .3458 1.225 .3433 E r r o r 2 98.7039 1 2 8.2253 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS -LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 3.5800 1.7725 1.8225 0600 5900 8775 6825 9625 5237 9283 01 02 9587 0603 .3409 .8450 1 .8960 4 4 4 4 1 03 QUESTION B (Unmarked) EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 108.8431 273.0360 163.0820 4.7596 148.3604 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 36.2811 22.7530 163.0820 1.5865 12.3634 1 .595 13.191 .128 241 8 0037 ,9377 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C s c 5, 10, 10, 14, 8, 13, 10, 1 4 5050 91 50 6975 2925 6350 7675 9675 8900 3, 6, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3 , 4955 1 007 3846 4028 5484 0306 7793 8489 4 4 4 4 1 04 QUESTIONS C (kana) EFFECT SS df MS F A .8871 3 .2957 1 .266 .3301 E r r o r 1 2.8027 1 2 .2336 B .851 5 1 .851 5 2.626 .1282 A x B .91 44 3 .3048 .940 .4536 E r r o r 2 3.8912 1 2 .3243 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP C MEAN STDV N NS-NS S .4700 .5717 C .4700 .3577 NS-HIGH NNS S .0950 .1900 C .6925 .5325 NS-INT NNS S .2800 .5600 C 1.0050 .9419 NS-LOW NNS S .1875 .3750 C .1700 .3400 1 05 QUESTIONS D (WH) EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 1.3894 17.5232 2.4531 1 .4064 11.1741 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 .4631 1.4603 2.4531 .4688 .931 2 .317 2.634 .503 ,81 37 1277 6901 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S c s c s c s c ,8600 ,01 00 , 1 575 ,6700 ,5900 ,8350 ,7550 ,0625 .4650 1 .4426 1.3373 1 .2832 .7388 1.5173 .4322 .8935 4 4 4 4 1 06 QUESTION E (nan) EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B .9052 1.9710 .3894 . 1 960 3 1 2 1 3 .301 7 .1643 .3894 .0653 1.837 .1936 1.568 .2329 .263 .8504 E r r o r 2 2.9797 1 2 2483 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 0000 0000 21 50 4425 3000 51 25 1 875 6300 0000 0000 ,251 6 8850 ,3940 4472 3750 5548 4 4 4 4 1 07 QUESTIONS F (nani) EFFECT SS df MS F E r r o r 1 B A x B 1 .8201 9 .3983 .1 639 2 .0579 3 1 2 1 3 .6067 .7832 .1 639 .6860 .775 .321 1 .346 5324 5867 3058 E r r o r 2 6.1172 1 2 5098 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S .5275 .6854 C .1 225 .2450 4 NS-HIGH NNS S .2200 .4400 C .3125 .6250 4 NS-INT NNS S .6025 .6315 c 1 .1450 1 .6656 4 NS-LOW NNS s . 9525 .891 5 c . 1 500 .3000 4 INTERLANGUAGE STRATEGIES SELF REPETITION WITHIN TURNS EFFECT SS d f MS Error 1 B A x B 46.4005 198 .6640 68 .2988 9.2544 3 1 2 1 3 15.4668 16.5553 68.2988 3.0848 934 9.110 .41 1 4561 01 04 7502 Error 2 89 .9617 1 2 7.4968 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS • S 4.8950 2.7619 C 8.0800 4.1181 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 5.6225 2 .5849 C 7.9725 5.0606 4 NS-INT NNS S 5.8275 1.5410 c 10.3500 1 .8678 4 NS-LOW NNS s 8.7200 5.3549 c 10 .3500 2.1890 4 SELF REPEPITION ACROSS SPEAKER TURNS EFFECT SS d f MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 9.2353 81.4938 213.3660 43.3709 3 1 2 1 3 3.0784 6.7911 213.3660 14.4570 453 7225 44.317 .0001 3.003 .0721 E r r o r 2 57.7748 1 2 4.8146 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 2.6875 2.2252 C 1 1 .6350' 3. 1157 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 4.3075 .9954 C . 7.1950 4.4175 4 NS-INT NNS S 4.3700 .6688 C 9.5075 .6093 4 NS-LOW NNS S 4.8575 1.7906 C 8.5425 2.6895 4 TOTAL SELF REPETITION EFFECT SS df MS F A 42.1319 3 14.0440 .446 .7271 E r r o r 1 377.5040 12 31.4587 B 473.4731 1 473.4731 46.706 .0001 A x B 90.5865 3 30.1955 2.979 .0735 E r r o r 2 121.6490 12 10.1374 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 7.5800 3.9650 C 19.7150 4.6712 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 9.9275 3.4219 c 15.1675 8.5256 4 NS-INT NNS s 10.2000 1.6635 c 19.8625 1.2713 4 s 13.5750 4.1815 NS-LOW NNS c 17.3100 4.7517 4 OTHER REPETITION EFFECT SS df MS F p E r r o r 1 B A x B 5.9998 135 .8222 1.3163 11 .9179 3 1 2 1 3 1 .9999 11.3185 1.3163 3.9726 1 77 1 63 491 9077 6941 6978 E r r o r 2 97 .0178 1 2 8.0848 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 5.4150 2 .3446 C 6.4250 4.6151 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 6.5275 2 .8236 C 5.0375 1.0110 4 NS-INT NNS S 3.8900 2 .2654 c 5.7050 1 .8392 4 NS-LOW NNS s 5.3750 3 .4020 c 5.6625 4 .6620 4 PARAPHRASES EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 3.2646 9.4580 3.4980 4.3435 3 1 2 1 3 1.0882 .7882 3.4980 1 .4478 1.381 .2957 3.871 .0701 1.602 .2401 E r r o r 2 10.8451 1 2 9038 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S-c s c .3800 2.1175 . 7325 .6500 1 .2775 1 .3225 .1 .0975 2.0425 .5470 1.4282 .6420 .8430 1.1761 .5267 .791 8 1 .0092 4 4 4 4 APPROXIMATIONS EFFECT SS df MS P A E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 12.2044 17.1378 24.4126 8.8242 23.1088 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 4.0681 1.4282 24.4126 2.9414 1.9257 2.849 12.677 1 .527 081 5 0041 2575 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C s c s c .3250 1.2850 . 1 200 .6000 .2200 3.1925 .5525 3.1275 .3796 .7094 .2400 .5776 . 2604 1.5552 .3984 3.1196 4 4 4 4 RESTRUCTURING EFFECT ss df MS F P A 2.1681 3 .7227 1 .764 .2069 E r r o r 1 4.9164 1 2 . 4097 B 4.0115 1 4.0115 6.836 .021 6 A x B 1.6379 3 .5460 .930 .4579 E r r o r 2 7.0417 1 2 .5868 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-INT NNS S C S C s c s c .0000 .2525 .0950 .4500 . 1 025 . 9325 .1 1 50 1.5100 .0000 .291 8 .1 900 .6508 .2050 .3882 .2300 1 .7876 4 4 4 4 1 1 5 TOTAL INTERLANGUAGE (COMPOSITE) EFFECT SS df MS F P A 172.7732 3 57.5911 1 .664 .2268 E r r o r 1 415.4044 1 2 34.6170 B 1 081 .8220 1 1081.8220 41 .377 .0001 A x B 170.9202 3 56.9734 2 .179 .1 429 E r r o r 2 313.7454 1 2 26.1454 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 13.7000 29.7925 17.4050 9000 6950 01 25 7075 31 75 21 , 15 31 20. 31 , 5.9849 5.5210 4.4979 8.3 674 01 60 4771 7.4808 3.7931 2. 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 6 INTRALANGUAGE STRATEGIES FOREIGNIZING EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 2.0401 3 .9532 2 .3112 .8620 3 1 2 1 3 .6800 .3294 2.3112 .2873 2 .064 1 580 14.047 .0030 1.746 .2102 E r r o r 2 1.9744 1 2 1 645 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S .0000 .0000 C .3675 . 4691 4 NS-HIGH NNS S .0000 .0000 c .2075 .41 50 4 NS-INT NNS s .1850 .3700 c 1 .2625 .7567 4 NS-LOW NNS s .2800 .5600 c .7775 .7486 4 * L i t e r a l T r a n s l a t i o n - i n s u f f i c i e n t number to run Anova 1 1 7 CODE SWITCHING EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 1 1 3 .6981 158.3680 .21 29 5.1069 3 1 2 1 3 37.8994 13.1973 .21 29 1 .7023 2.872 .0800 .097 .777 7540 531 2 E r r o r 2 26.2914 1 2 2.1910 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C ,0000 0000 7850 0450 2050 5675 ,4375 4675 .0000 .0000 .7834 1 .8912 3226 5292 5495 6289 4 4 4 4 TOTAL INTRALANGUAGE STRATEGIES (COMPOSITE) EFFECT SS df MS F P E r r o r 1 B A x B 136.7902 160.1630 6.7712 3.7521 3 1 2 1 3 45.5967 13.3469 6.7712 1.2507 3.416 .0523 1 .943 .359 ,1864 ,7855 E r r o r 2 41 .8255 1 2 3.4855 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S .0000 .0000 C .3675 .4691 4 NS-HIGH NNS S .7850 .7834 C 2.3575 2.4657 4 NS-INT NNS S 3.2050 3.3226 C 4.8300 3.1276 4 NS-LOW NNS S 5.4375 4.5495 C 5.5525 4.3469 4 1 1 9 REPAIR CONFIRMATION REQUESTS EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 3.5427 14.4576 39.2498 1.5962 3 1 2 1 3 1 .1809 1 .2048 39.2498 .5321 .980 .4361 18.610 .0013 .252 .8577 E r r o r 2 25.3094 1 2 2.1091 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 1.1100 4.0125 1.7750 3.9025 6200 2725 0700 2475 2 4 2 4, 1 .0884 2.2936 1.1748 1.1455 .721 1 1 .2354 1 .2863 .6462 4 4 4 4 1 20 CLARIFICATION REQUESTS EFFECT SS d f MS E r r o r 1 B A x B 234.4390 261.7010 67.6866 9.9989 3 1 2 1 3 78.1463 21 .8084 67.6866 3.3330 3.583 .0462 7.972 .393 .01 48 . 7628 E r r o r 2 101.8820 1 2 8.4901 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S 6.1925 3.6037 C 7.8250 3.9405 4 NS-HIGH NNS S 10.6725 4.0908 C 15.3175 4.9078 4 NS-INT NNS S 6.5900 3.8018 C 9.6225 3.1409 4 NS-LOW NNS S 11.6700 3.6255 C 13.9950 3.7941 4 121 COMPREHENSION CHECKS EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 39.8790 70.5495 13.5330 15.9931 22.9028 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 13.2930 5.8791 13.5330 5.3310 1.9086 2.261 7.091 2.793 1 331 01 98 0853 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C . 1 675 1 . 4450 . 7850 .5425 2.3775 2.9800 1.4100 4.9750 .3350 1.4506 .81 75 .6407 1 .6497 2.0866 1.6889 4.2341 4 4 4 4 VERIFICATION OF MEANING 1 22 EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 .6254 2.5896 1.3530 .4731 3.7209 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 .2085 .21 58 1 .3530 .1 577 .31 01 966 4.364 .509 4422 0564 6869 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C .0000 .0000 .0000 .5725 .1275 .5925 .0000 . 6075 . 0000 .0000 .0000 1 . 1450 .2550 . 4725 .0000 .7101 4 4 4 4 1 23 LEXICAL UNCERTAINTY EFFECT SS df MS F P A 8.2052 3 2.7351 2 .053 . 1 596 E r r o r 1 15.9874 1 2 1.3323 B 8.0601 1 8.0601 5.863 .0307 A x B 7.0067 3 2.3356 1 .699 .2196 E r r o r 2 16.4967 1 2 1.3747 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS S .0900 . 1 800 C .1225 .2450 4 NS-HIGH NNS S .0000 .0000 C .1050 .2100 4 NS-INT NNS s . 1 275 .2550 c 2.1100 2 .1704 4 NS-LOW NNS . s .1150 .2300 c 2.0100 2 .4213 4 I n s u f f i c i e n t number of d e f i n i t i o n requests to run ANOVA 1 24 TOTAL REPAIR (COMPOSITE) EFFECT SS df MS E r r o r 1 B A x B E r r o r 2 378.8474 322.9440 523.9090 T4.0875 255.5520 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 126.2824 26.9120 523.9090 4.6958 21.2960 4.692 24.601 .221 021 5 0005 8790 TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2 GROUP TASK MEAN STDV N NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS S C S C S C S C 7 1 4, 13, 20, 1 1 1 9 1 5 25 5600 4925 2325 4375 8425 7725 5300 832 5 4.1539 8.9279 4.6335 7779 4223 6034 7592 6681 3, 4 3 3 3. 4 4 4 4 

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.831.1-0078298/manifest

Comment

Related Items