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 ON FOREIGNER  & PROFICIENCY  TALK DISCOURSE  COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN NS-NNS  AND INTERACTION  By IAN B.A.,  MCFARLAND SHORTREED  The U n i v e r s i t y  A THESIS SUBMITTED  of Toronto,  1979  IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF  THE- REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Department o f Language E d u c a t i o n ,  We a c c e p t t h i s  thesis  to the r e q u i r e d  Faculty of Education  as c o n f o r m i n g standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January ©Copyright  1987  Ian Shortreed,  1987  In presenting  t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the  requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  I- <&A^U4L?£.  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  r>F-6  fWR-n  ^T^c^ou^x^/  (? , /f8y  ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted t o examine the e f f e c t s o f task complexity and l e a r n e r p r o f i c i e n c y i n n a t i v e speaker (NS)/non-native speaker (NNS) i n t e r a c t i o n . A t o t a l o f 24 Japanese NSs and 12 NNSs s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t i n g three  levels  of p r o f i c i e n c y , low (n=4), i n t e r m e d i a t e (n=4) and advanced (n=4), were randomly a s s i g n e d t o dyads t o complete two communication  t a s k s , each d i f f e r i n g i n r e l a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y .  Three composite v a r i a b l e s made up of 32 dependent  variables  were used t o measure the frequency 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 across both t a s k s . The  h y p o t h e s i s that NSs would s i m p l i f y t h e i r speech and use a h i g h e r 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 i n accordance with the l e v e l o f p r o f i c i e n c y of the NNSs and the complexity of the t a s k s was t e s t e d . The r e s u l t s f o r the first  independent v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y , i n d i c a t e d  was a trend showing t h a t NSs s i m p l i f i e d  there  t h e i r speech when  a d d r e s s i n g NNSs i n g e n e r a l and i n p a r t i c u l a r , when a d d r e s s i n g lower l e v e l l e a r n e r s of Japanese. The r e s u l t s f o r the second independent v a r i a b l e o f task complexity r e v e a l e d t h a t there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the number 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 used on the  more complex task f o r a l l groups. These f i n d i n g s are d i s c u s s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r second language t e a c h i n g are e x p l o r e d . Signature of S u p e r v i s o r  ,.  r  iii  TABLE OF  CONTENTS Page  T I T L E PAGE  .  i  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  i i i  L I S T OF TABLES  •  L I S T OF FIGURES  V vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  v i i  INTRODUCTION  1  CHAPTERS: I . VARIATION IN INPUT Criteria  f o r D e t e r m i n i n g Task Complexity  Japanese F o r e i g n e r II.  3  MEASURING  Talk  13  THE COMPLEXITY OF INPUT  17  Communication  19  Strategies  Strategies  24  Hypotheses  25  METHODOLOGY Design Subjects  29 .  Materials:  29 Description  Procedure IV.  15  Formal Reduction S t r a t e g i e s  Repair  III.  7  DATA ANALYSIS .  o f Tasks  32 33  "  35  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Cont'd.)  V. RESULTS  39  Summary o f R e s u l t s  f o r Main H y p o t h e s e s  Summary o f R e s u l t s  f o r Individual  V I . CONCLUSIONS AND  .......  Variables  ..  IMPLICATIONS  39 51  56  BIBLIOGRAPHY  69 i  APPENDICES  78  A. P l a c e m e n t T e s t s Used F o r D e t e r m i n i n g P r o f i c i e n c y  78  B. Samples  91  C. Anova  o f T a s k s Used  Tables  i n t h e Study  f o r 32 Dependent  Variables  94  V  L I S T OF  TABLES  Table  Page  1.0  Transcription  Times  35  1.1  Sample o f Computer D a t a  File  37  1.2  T a b l e o f Means f o r Task  1 & 2 - Words/T-unit  41  1.3  Words/T-unit  1.4  T a b l e o f Means f o r T a s k 1 & 2 - T - u n i t s / T u r n  1.5  T-Units per Turn  1.6  T a b l e o f Means f o r T a s k 1 & 2 - Words/Min  43  1 .7  Words P e r M i n u t e  43  1.8  T a b l e o f Means f o r T a s k 1 & 2 - Type Token  44  1.9  Type Token R a t i o S c h e f f e T e s t  44  2.1  T a b l e o f Means f o r T a s k 1 & 2 - I n t r a l a n g u a g e  2.2  Intralanguage  3.1  T a b l e o f Means f o r T a s k 1 & 2 R e p a i r S t r a t e g i e s  47  3.2  Repair  47  3.3  Anova T e s t f o r C o m p o s i t e R e p a i r  4.1  Formal  4.2  Topic Encoding  4.3  C o m p o s i t e V a r i a b l e s (Means & F V a l u e s )  50  5.1  Repair  52  5.2  Question  6.1  Interlanguage  Strategies  (Means & F V a l u e s )  ....  54  6.2  Intralanguage  Strategies  (Means & F V a l u e s )  ....  55  Scheffe Test  Reduction  Forms  ..  Scheffe Test  Strategies  ....  48  (Means & F V a l u e s ) . .  49  (Means & F V a l u e s ) . . . .  50  (Individual Variables)  (Means & F V a l u e s )  APPENDIX C - Anova T a b l e s  45 46  Scheffe Test  Strategies  42 42  Scheffe Test  Strategies  Strategies  ...  Scheffe Test  Strategies  Strategies  41  43  & Means f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s  ..  94  vi  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1  Page Task Complexity S c o r i n g Procedure  12  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This of  study  would n o t have been p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t  many p e o p l e ,  especially  the f a c u l t y  Kokusai Koryu a t the Kansai who a l l o w e d  with  research during  S p e c i a l thanks t o Hiroko  Studies  t h e 1983-84  Onaha f o r h e l p i n g  t h e 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  f e e d b a c k on t h e r e s e a r c h .  Steven Ross p r o v i d e d  advice  procedures  Drs.  of the  U n i v e r s i t y of Foreign  me t o c o n d u c t t h i s  academic year.  and s t a f f  the help  on t h e s t a t i s t i c a l  Michael  the i n i t i a l  suggestions  advisers,  Saint-Jacques  and p r o v i d e d To my  Mohan, K e n n e t h R e e d e r , and  Bernard  many t h a n k s f o r g u i d i n g what may be t h e most  drawn o u t M.A.  t h e s i s on r e c o r d a t U . B . C . F i n a l l y ,  much t o my w i f e  completed.  t h e s i s proposal  f o r c a r r y i n g out the study.  Drs. Bernard  many M a c P a i n t  u s e d . I am g r a t e f u l t o  Long and C r a i g C h a u d r o n from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f  H a w a i i who r e a d helpful  much needed  and e s p e c i a l l y  sessions  my d a u g h t e r who  so t h a t t h i s  I owe  sacrificed  t h e s i s c o u l d be  1 INTRODUCTION  T h i s study i s concerned  with three p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s i n  second language a c q u i s i t i o n r e s e a r c h (SLA). F i r s t , designed  t o i n v e s t i g a t e developmental  i t is  stages i n L 2  a c q u i s i t i o n as r e f l e c t e d i n the nature of input d i r e c t e d a NNSs r e p r e s e n t i n g three l e v e l s of p r o f i c i e n c y . r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area i n d i c a t e s that n a t i v e accommodate f o r non-native both  speaker  Previous  speakers  p r o f i c i e n c y by making  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.  This  study  r e p l i c a t e s previous r e s e a r c h i n order to confirm or r e j e c t the c l a i m t h a t such adjustments are t r i g g e r e d by the p r o f i c i e n c y of the non-native Secondly,  speaker.  by f o c u s i n g on task as an independent v a r i a b l  t h i s study examines the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t task types on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . Previous r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s that the nature of the communication task has a s i g n i f i c a n t  effect  the i n t e r a c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . However c o n f l i c t i n g r e p o r t s have emerged regarding the causes behi such v a r i a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s study r e p l i c a t e s  previous  r e s e a r c h i n order t o confirm or r e j e c t claims r e g a r d i n g t h e f f e c t s of task complexity  on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n and  attempts t o f u r t h e r explore the causes f o r such  variation.  U n l i k e the previous r e s e a r c h questions, the t h i r d major r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n breaks  new ground since t h i s i s the f i r s  e m p i r i c a l study t o i n v e s t i g a t e the p r o p e r t i e s of Japanese FT. While much of the r e s e a r c h on FT has been d e r i v e d from  2 an a n a l y s i s little  of E n g l i s h  and E u r o p e a n  r e s e a r c h on o t h e r l a n g u a g e s  Chinese. Given the c u r r e n t is  both a timely The  thesis  and  interest  needed a r e a o f  i s divided  into  languages, such.as  Japanese  dependent the  variables  methodology used  introduces reports the  Chapter  research.  s i x c h a p t e r s . Chapter 1  implications  current  talk  second  on NS-NNS  the r a t i o n a l e  i n the study. Chapter  in collecting  the s t a t i s t i c a l  the f i n d i n g s  foreigner  2 discusses used  i n terms  the  3 describes  procedures used. Chapter  of the f i n d i n g s  language  behind  the d a t a . Chapter  of the study w h i l e Chapter  r e s e a r c h and  or  i n A s i a n languages, i t  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 interaction.  there i s very  4 5  6 discusses  of p r e v i o u s  t h e more g e n e r a l b a c k g r o u n d  acquisition  theory.  of  3  Chapter  Variation  Recent on  the  t o be the  i n I n p u t : The  second  language  input learners  register  Effects  receive,  addressed  and  speakers  literature  as  i n p u t w h i c h has qualitatively  (NNSs) has  "foreigner  talk"  (NSs)  focused  been r e p o r t e d  different  from  simplified  use when s p e a k i n g  been r e f e r r e d (FT)  Proficiency  r e s e a r c h has  to n a t i v e speakers. This  which n a t i v e speakers  non-native  o f Task and  acquisition  both q u a n t i t a t i v e l y  language  I  to  to i n the  (Ferguson,  1971;  Long,  1983). The  main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  occur a t both  the sentence  of  lexis  s y n t a x and  interactional  and  o f FT have been r e p o r t e d t o level  adjustments  a r e made by NSs  These a d j u s t m e n t s  questions  statements  c o n f i r m a t i o n and frequency speech  Although and  of  Gaies  to f a c i l i t a t e  NNS  o f more  t o NNSs, more  checks,  and  p a r a p h r a s i n g and  a higher expansions  numerous s t u d i e s have i n v e s t i g a t e d f e a t u r e s o f FT,  (1977),  provide empirical  Freed  (1980) and  Scarcella  evidence which i n d i c a t e s  p l a y s an  important  the  there i s s t i l l  on w h i c h o f t h e s e i s most p r o m i n e n t .  simplification  where  i n NS  1983). .  discourse level  consensus  simplification  o c c u r i n t h e form  addressed  comprehension  of r e p e t i t i o n ,  (Hatch,  the  at the d i s c o u r s e l e v e l  comprehension. than  through  role  and that  The  sentence no studies  Higa  (1982)  linguistic  i n making NS  speech  - 4 more c o m p r e h e n s i b l e reported  that  according Long  to  the the  t o NNSs. M o r e o v e r , t h e s e  relative  the  other  NSs  d i d not  significantly  but  instead  resorted s u c h as  employing a higher comprehension  frequency  a d j u s t m e n t s made by  was in  that had  the  their of  equally  type of  two-way e x c h a n g e o f i n the  the  tasks  kinds  important  interactional (i.e.  The  and  the  of i n t e r a c t i o n a l  f i n d i n g i n Long's  amount o f  the In  three  information  frequencies  only  the  tasks  which  of i n t e r a c t i o n a l three  a one-way exchange where  i n the  required  differences  which the  NS-NS and  other one  other  a nonsignificant difference in  adjustments  engaged  negotiation  NS-NNS d y a d s . In  information  study  learners  significant  vicarious narrative, giving  exchanging  task  was  lexis  English.  e f f e c t s of  e f f e c t on  speaker merely conveyed there  that  and  NNSs o f  task  i n NS-NS and  which r e q u i r e d  lacked  utterances  communication  relative  adjustments used  study  NSs.  a significant  emerged  language.  s y n t a x and  confirmation  i n v e s t i g a t e the  work i n NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s . a  own  c h e c k s when a d d r e s s i n g  A s e c o n d and  in his  simplify their  repeating  p r o f i c i e n c y on  1  hand, f o u n d  second  t o more g l o b a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l  However, Long d i d n o t learners  simplification differed  NNS's competence i n t h e  ( 1 9 8 1 a ) , on  adjustments  degree of  studies  speaker  the  NS-NNS d y a d s  instructions,  and  opinions).  above s t u d i e s  t y p e and  determine the  the  indicate that  level  of  the  both the  learner's  amount o f n e g o t i a t i o n  i n t e r a c t i o n of  proficiency  work w h i c h t a k e s  may place  5 in  NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n s .  directly studies  investigated this examining  interaction  1  have a t t e m p t e d  talk  to tease  and Gass  four one  carried  o u t by n i n e  different  studies  a number o f r e c e n t i n NNS-NNS  1  out the e f f e c t s  of  these  (1984) examined t h e amount  n e g o t i a t i o n work i n one-way and two-way  tasks  intermediate  communication  ESL s t u d e n t s  from  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d s . In t h e one-way  task,  member o f t h e dyad d e s c r i b e d a p i c t u r e w h i c h t h e o t h e r  member drew. I n t h e two-way created  by h a v i n g  of  a robbery  in  order  found than  to find  that  task,  an i n f o r m a t i o n gap was  each l e a r n e r l i s t e n  and t h e n  both  o u t who  to a d i f f e r e n t  members exchanged  the robber  account  information  was. V a r o n i s  and Gass  t h a t t h e one-way t a s k r e q u i r e d more n e g o t i a t i o n work t h e two-way  where s p e a k e r s  t a s k as measured by t h e number o f i n s t a n c e s  i n d i c a t e d n o n - u n d e r s t a n d i n g . They  the e x i s t e n c e of shared  second  task  shared  reference  of  none o f t h e s e  hypothesis,  interlanguage  two v a r i a b l e s . V a r o n i s of  Although  facilitated  concluded  b a c k g r o u n d knowledge i n t h e  c o m m u n i c a t i o n whereas t h e l a c k o f  i n the f i r s t  task  l e d to a greater  amount  n e g o t i a t i o n work. In another  fronted  study  comparing non-native  l e s s o n s , Doughty and P i c a  significantly  t a l k and  (1984) r e p o r t  teacher-  that  more n e g o t i a t i o n work as measured by t h e  percentage of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l adjustments to t o t a l T-units  and f r a g m e n t s o c c u r r e d  one-way t a s k and  similar  Gass s t u d y .  on a two-way  t o the drawing  I n t h e one-way t a s k ,  task  t a s k used  than  on a  i n the Varonis  one member d i r e c t e d t h e  6 other to  member t o p l a c e p l a s t i c  replicate  a completed  t a s k , e a c h member had  and  e a c h had  while  ( A i s missing  B i s missing  type  has  l e a r n e r s with  top  communication  (see  left  Gass and  levels  with  1985  hand s e c t i o n o f  NSs  i n order  to  and  than  intermediate  for a similar  Varonis  and  with  i n both  relate  t o the  NNSs. The directly  use  of  linked  language w i l l  be  may  NSs  and  otherwise  such avoidance to the  learners  reported  this  language Pica  that a  i n t h e NNS-NNS  latter  finding  be more  a result^ avoid  in  this  cautious taking  t a k e when c o n v e r s i n g  with  s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h seems t o  l e a r n e r ' s p r o f i c i e n c y i n the  discussed  and  greater  research questions  as  another  greatest  different  i t does i n d i c a t e t h a t l e a r n e r s may  when c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h  t o manage  P o r t e r ' s and  i n NS-NNS d y a d s . A l t h o u g h  which they  the  when l e a r n e r s o f  of n e g o t i a t i o n sequences o c c u r r e d  risks  where  completing  level  t h a t the  frequency  study,  garden  o b s e r v a t i o n ) . In  (1985) f o u n d  i n t e r a c t e d . As  directly  same  (1983)  were b e t t e r a b l e  (1984/85) s t u d i e s , t h e y  does not  garden  l e a r n e r s employed a w i d e r r a n g e o f  proficiency levels  than  two  compare  NNSs. P o r t e r  Doughty's  dyads  as  garden). out  of p r o f i c i e n c y  amount o f n e g o t i a t i o n work o c c u r r e d  backgrounds  so  s e c t i o n of the  s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d  i n communication  different  board  hand s e c t i o n o f t h e  s t r a t e g i e s and  Paribakht,  study,  bottom r i g h t  different  t h a t advanced  problems  a different  been h e l d c o n s t a n t  one-way t a s k s b o t h found  a felt  to exchange i n f o r m a t i o n t o c o n s t r u c t the  A number o f o t h e r task  on  d r a w i n g o f a g a r d e n . In t h e  way  picture  flowers  i n Chapter  2.  target  be  7  Criteria  For  Determining  In r e v i e w i n g distinction speaker there  was  the  Task  Complexity  literature  i n f o r m a t i o n to another  i s a two-way exchange o f  distinction  i s frequently cited  judging  complexity  variables these  v a r i a b l e s are  on  Crookes,  1986  task  v e r b a l l e a r n i n g and  review  theoretical  on  both  has  task  Watkins,  a b s t r a c t than  d r a w i n g o f an  literature  complexity  i s found  psychometric  theory  i s s u e and  for  simply i n L1 (see  Duff,  1986  SLA). reveals that a  d e r i v e d from two s a l i e n c e and  stimuli.  recall  1979). The  above  other  motor  skill  three  First,  (Bevan and use  taxonomy  principle  the  between  effect  Steger,1971;  of a r e a l  i . e . cutouts)  object  (or  i n an e x p e r i m e n t i s  a p h o t o g r a p h o f t h a t o b j e c t whereas a  object  the  abstractness  been shown t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of o b j e c t s less  i n SLA  literature be  where  However,  be made t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  c o m p r e h e n s i o n and and  complexity.  former category,  can  s a l i e n c e of  stimuli  Gardiner  should  In t h e  subclassifications  the  this  &  constructs: stimulus  requirements.  of  of  tasks  one  t h e major c r i t e r i o n  f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s  complexity  relative  task  task  and  t h e r e a r e many  often ignored  f u r t h e r comments on A brief  of  as  which c o n t r i b u t e to task  research  a  i n f o r m a t i o n . While the  of a task,  b e c a u s e much o f t h e work on  for  NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n ,  made between t a s k s w h i c h r e q u i r e o n l y  to impart  the  on  i s even more a b s t r a c t t h a n  a  8 photograph. F i n a l l y , object  c o u l d be  stimuli  considered  ( K o l e r s and  Secondly, stimuli  (Hall,1982).  For  distinguishing  by  the  that  between two  complexity  t a s k s used  the  similar  aids  discriminanda  influences  This i s well  illustrated  In t h e  first  photographs. In the  other  hand, where one  directed  the  other  member t o draw p i c t u r e s o f  a grid,  similar  p r o p e r t i e s and  discriminate the  that  t h e r e were no  the  first  However, t h e mitigated  by  member o f t h e  two  only  t a s k was  this  criterion,  more complex t h a n  criterion  f o r judging  was  shared needed  ( i . e . t h e name i t would  the  above d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  a third  second  different  cue  drawings  to  dyad  drawings which  t h e r e f o r e , o n l y one  between t h e d i f f e r e n t  o b j e c t ) . Given  or  discriminanda  the  on  both  p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h meant  more s p e c i f i c  between t h e d i f f e r e n t  objects  task,  p i c t u r e s where two  identical  t o use  number o f cues r e q u i r e d  study.  identical  shared  thereby  s u b j e c t t o draw upon when  of a task.  dyad had  means o f  on  of  task  hand, t h e a b s e n c e o f c o l o r means  in this  s u b j e c t s had  distinguish task,  other  Similarly,  photographs the  the  task.  two  another  between o b j e c t s and  the  members o f t h e three  subject with  f o r the  relative the  c l u e s i n the  e x i s t e n c e of c o l o r i n t a s k  clues  distinguish  the  task  1984).  less  completing  an  investigated learning discrimination  c o m p r e h e n s i o n . On  to  Brison,  example, t h e  provides  are  to  been shown t o i n f l u e n c e p e r f o r m a n c e i n  experiments which  there  referring  t h e most a b s t r a c t form o f  t h e number o f c o n t e x t u a l  has  stimuli  a word o r u t t e r a n c e  second two  appear task.  tasks  was  task s a l i e n c e ,  to  9 that of  i s , w h e t h e r the  information  used  in this  drawing  necessary in  the  only  p h o t o g r a p h s on  who  had  given  subjects  t o be  i n the  could  respective the  had  individual  distinction  the with  NNS  conveyed to the  this  subjects  reference  was  solely  and  based  shared  therefore  subjects  Varonis's  on  was  was  the  an  dyad  important  which  first  the  these that  task.  e a r l i e r when  (1985) s t u d y Varonis  were  found  lessened  compared  that  the  need  meaning. In t h e one-way  shared  reference,  to suggest t h a t the  the  of  only  i t would a p p e a r  cited  same  location  each of  r e q u i r e d to complete  evidence  more complex t h a n t h e  no  the  this  member who  two-way t a s k  to n e g o t i a t e  contrast,  member o f t h e  reference  factor,  the  of  prescribed  from one other  the  shared  sets  c o n c l u s i o n was  in their  In  identical  ( 1 9 8 1 a ) . Gass and  n e g o t i a t i o n work was  the  task.  more complex t h a n t h e  however, where t h e r e was  in  the  both  tasks  dyad p o s s e s s e d  p i c t u r e s . Thus, t h e r e  o f Gass and  Additional  the  know t h e  t a s k s . Given t h i s  t h a t o f Long  shared  In  draw upon when c o m p l e t i n g  to support  results  distinction.  gap  amount o f  s e c o n d t a s k was  Evidence  this  a master g r i d  the master g r i d  the  the  f o r completing  member d i d n o t  same amount  task. Again,  member o f  information  to the  the  s i n c e both possessed  t h a t one  information  the  one  photo r e c o g n i t i o n task,  p h o t o g r a p h s . The  the  illustrate  information  information  fact  have a c c e s s  when c o m p l e t i n g  study  task,  subjects  for  task,  more task.  drawing task  photo r e c o n s t r u c t i o n task  can  amount o f motor a c t i v i t y r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e  be  is seen  each  1 0  task-  Although  production,  both  i n the  tasks  required a restricted  second task  draw o b j e c t s whereas i n t h e arrange their  p a r t n e r . The  prescribed Brown  than  c o o r d i n a t i o n than  s i n c e they  according  hearing actually  the  as  evidence  that  are utterances the  has  use  for this  this  t o the  due  elementary  to  requirements scoring  affect  complexity  demanding  of task  complex t h a n  level  of  stimuli  restricted  Varonis necessitates  not  of b e g i n n i n g  used i n  or  Japanese.  task  the  complexity  of the  been a d o p t e d whereby  the  1  on  s a l i e n c e and m o t o r - a c t i v i t y  t a s k s were e v a l u a t e d  b a s e d on  the  threshold  s u c h a t a s k was  how  p r o c e d u r e has  experimental  object  summarize t h e above d i s c u s s i o n , F i g u r e  illustrates  tasks  p r o d u c e t h e name  o f s u c h two-way t a s k s  reason  three  this  r e q u i r e d . They  i n t h e Gass and  participation  l e a r n e r s of  In o r d e r  as  Bellugi  i n a two-way t a s k where  a a t t a i n e d high  c o m p e t e n c e and study  is less  in a  to support  much l e s s  words, m a n i p u l a t i o n  comprehension  greater  o f p o i n t i n g t o an  s u b j e c t p o i n t and  In o t h e r  only  of F r a s e r ,  t h a t p e r f o r m a n c e on  i n a drawing task or  NNS  study  t o the degree of p r o d u c t i o n  the  to  as d i r e c t e d by  e m p i r i c a l evidence  found  actually  putting objects  having  In f a c t ,  the  simply  s e n t e n c e was  of  stimuli  page 12  had  of  to  required  a stimulus  object.  production  study.  clearly  t h a t t h e motor a c t i v i t y  of  only  task they  p i o n e e r i n g L1  (1963) p r o v i d e s  concluded after  drawing task  p l a c e . The  conclusion varied  first  s u b j e c t s had  photographs i n a p r e s c r i b e d l o c a t i o n  motor-skill  and  the  form  learning task. different  f o r the degree  e x i s t e n c e or nonexistence  of of  the  A  11 criteria  d e s c r i b e d above. While  employed  to study  written not  different Krashen,  on  methods o f e l i c i t i n g 1982  f o r review  used  b a s i s of  in this  the  study  data  board  ( see D u l a y , B u r t  of t a s k s such  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 u s e d by  and  and  Gass  listening  based  (1984) were e v a l u a t e d  procedure. be  the  scores  of  out  i n the  the  Higa Varonis  same s c o r i n g  hierarchical  device  schema can  Such a s t u d y  tasks.  s i n c e t h e use  should  the  different  of  not  be  t o determine i f such  accurately predict  l e a r n e r s have c o m p l e t i n g  i n f o r m a t i o n gap  should  t a s k a t t r i b u t e s has  future i n order  the  and  S c a r c e l l a and  u s i n g the  for specific  been t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y .  difficulty  task  T h i s method o f e v a l u a t i n g t a s k c o m p l e x i t y  weighted  carried  It- i s  as  Pica  i n f o r m a t i o n gap  i n t e r p r e t e d o n l y as a h e u r i s t i c  such  and  on morpheme s t u d i e s  t h a t the drawing  D o u g h t y ( 1 9 8 4 ) , Lego b l o c k s as u s e d by (1982),  evaluate  been s c o r e d as more complex t h a n  photo r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k . Other types felt  and  f o r w r i t t e n language).  f o l l o w i n g index has  in oral  research to  of l i t e r a t u r e  Homburg, 1977  both  q u a n t i t a t i v e methods have  in applied linguistic  P e r k i n s and the  complexity  language development, such  been used  and  syntactic  s i m i l a r measures have been  relative types  of  a  FIGURE 1  COMPLEXITY  = Abstractness 1 2 3 4  1 ) Listening Info-gap (2-way)  + 1 2 3 1 2 x  2) P i c t u r e Drawing (1-way)  x  x  3) P h o t o Grid (1-way)  x  x  4) F e l t Board (2-way)  x  5) L e g o Blocks (1-way)  x  1 = least  + Discriminanda  complex  3+  12  x  x  x  x  x  x  + Motor A c t i v i t y +  1 2 3 4 x  x  x  x  to  + Reference  x  4 = most complex  x  x  x  x  = TC  SCORE 15  1 1  x  9  x  8  x  7  * TC = TASK COMPLEXITY  SCORE  1 3  Japanese Foreigner  Talk  In a d d i t i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g complexity on  and p r o f i c i e n c y ,  foreigner talk  t h e two v a r i a b l e s o f t a s k  this  study  extends the research  t o t h e J a p a n e s e l a n g u a g e . W h i l e t h e r e has  b e e n some e x p l o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h done i n t h i s  area,  i t still  r e m a i n s t o be s e e n whether t h e f i n d i n g s o f p r e v i o u s FT r e s e a r c h a r e a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o languages such which d i f f e r structure  radically  both  i n syntax  s t u d i e s by S k o u t a r i d e s  provide  only  FT.  Given  aspects which To  and d i s c o u r s e  from E n g l i s h and o t h e r n o r t h e r n  Earlier  limited  still  (1981) and Long  i s an i m p o r t a n t  r e m a i n s t o be e x p l o r e d  effects  areas  ( 1 983 )  1  area  of i n v e s t i g a t i o n  (see Anderson, chapter,  1984).  three  o f FT r e s e a r c h have been o u t l i n e d : t h e  of proficiency,  task complexity  l a n g u a g e on NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n .  and t h e t a r g e t  Each o f these  shown t o be w o r t h y o f f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . following  languages  i n the c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c  summarize t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s  principle  European  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e f e a t u r e s o f J a p a n e s e  the current interest  o f SLA, t h i s  as Japanese  three research questions  areas  were  Thus, t h e  were examined  i n this  Does t h e p e r c e i v e d competence o f a n o n - n a t i v e  speaker  study: 1)  affect  the kinds  of l i n g u i s t i c  a d j u s t m e n t s made by a n a t i v e  and i n t e r a c t i o n a l speaker?  1 . T h i s i s a secondary r e f e r e n c e t o the o r i g i n a l c i t e d i n Long ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The o r i g i n a l p a p e r was n o t a v a i l a b l e a t t h e time o f w r i t i n g .  study  1 4  2)  Is NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n a f f e c t e d by the complexity of the communication  task?  3 ) Do such speech adjustments i n Japanese resemble those r e p o r t e d i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on FT i n E n g l i s h and other n o r t h e r n European  languages?  1 5  Chapter I I  Measuring Interactional  In a survey out in  that  the Complexity  F e a t u r e s i n NS-NNS  o f SLA l i t e r a t u r e ,  r e s e a r c h on F T , c o m m u n i c a t i o n  analysis.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  phenomena u l t i m a t e l y a r e employed  Tarone  Interaction  Tarone  NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n would b e n e f i t  and  o f I n p u t and  strategies  from  argues  share s i m i l a r  (1980) h a s p o i n t e d  a more i n t e g r a t e d  that  and  by b o t h NSs and NNSs a l i k e ,  in  Tarone  interactional NNS s p e e c h  communication simplification that  path  suggests  that  adjustments  i n NS s p e e c h  they  other.  simplification  have c o u n t e r p a r t s  strategies.  The f u n c t i o n  i n NS s p e e c h  of l i n g u i s t i c  i s t o encode meaning i n a way w h i l e NNS p r o d u c t i o n  a r e employed by t h e l e a r n e r  i n o r d e r t o 'take t h e  of least  resistance'  t o ensure  t h a t h i s / h e r message i s  T h u s , b o t h NSs and NNSs a d o p t  similar  t o a v o i d t h e u s e o f complex s y n t a x and l e x i s Kasper  although  NNS c o m p r e h e n s i o n  understood.  and  purposes  o f each  linguistic  three  a s e v i d e n c e d by NNS p r o d u c t i o n a n d  most f a c i l i t a t e s  strategies  these  functional  a r e o f t e n d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g independent Accordingly,  and r e p a i r  (1983:38) r e f e r  strategies  o r what  Faerch  t o as " f o r m a l r e d u c t i o n  strategies". While  such  necessarily  s t r a t e g i e s may h e l p a v o i d t r o u b l e ,  h e l p when p r o b l e m s i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n  o c c u r . A c c o r d i n g t o Tarone, o f NS i n t e r a c t i o n a l  this  t h e y do n o t actually  i s the functional  modifications,  NNS  purpose  communication  16 strategies, of  formal  that FT  and  b o t h NS  reduction  many o f  NNS  could  as  classified  communicating  native  as  r e p a i r work used  the  and  s u c h as  communication  s t r a t e g i e s s u c h as  reformulates utterance.  his/her  described and  other  Tarone kinds  is careful o f NS  negotiate  and  NS  c o r r e c t i o n of  made by  Day  where t h e y repair.  For  modifications requests,  term o f  "appeals  request,  and  by  in  NNS  learner  such  as  lexical  for assistance" Porter  "verification  other  linguistic  types  between  these  form. A s i m i l a r  distinction  study,  on is  o f NS-NNS d i s c o u r s e  d i s t i n g u i s h between c o r r e c t i v e f e e d b a c k this  to  o f r e p a i r which f o c u s  study  of  uncertainty".  r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s which are used  purposes of  an  comprehension  Long and  schema o f  e t a l . (1984) i n t h e i r  the  and  r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h have been  general  meaning and  NS  complex  i n drawing a d i s t i n c t i o n  NNS  self  meaning i n the m i d d l e o f  t h e more s p e c i f i c  meaning, d e f i n i t i o n  of  that  paraphrasing,  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  (1984:15) u s i n g  the  intended  s i m i l a r NNS  under the  of  a l s o have c o u n t e r p a r t s  checks, c l a r i f i c a t i o n  checks r e f l e c t  "some c l a r i f i c a t i o n  r e s t r u c t u r i n g where the  Similarly,  confirmation  or  expansions,  decomposition  content  and  meaning"  meaning". T a r o n e p o i n t s o u t  propositional  circumlocutions,  some a l t e r n a t e means  speaker's intended  modifications  in  e i t h e r communication  "provide  for negotiating  l e a r n e r ' s intended  repetitions,  (1980:424) s u g g e s t s  be  of  other  case  modifications reported  used t o  interactional  i n the  interactional  s t r a t e g i e s which are  the  r e p a i r work. As  s t r a t e g i e s , Tarone  t h e NS  literature  and  o n l y NS  and  and NNS  17 repair The  work w i l l  be  examined.  above d i s c u s s i o n p r o v i d e s  framework f o r i n t r o d u c i n g variables  used  the  the  three  t o a n a l y z e b o t h NS  necessary t h e o r e t i c a l composite  and  s t u d y . These c o m p o s i t e v a r i a b l e s w i l l  NNS  speech i n  this  be  r e f e r r e d to  as  formal  reduction  repair  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  that  device  rather  theoretical up  these  according their  t h a n as  reliable  constructs.  three  being  The  to d e f i n i t i o n s given  basis  modifications,  c h o s e n as  a heuristic  measures r e p r e s e n t i n g  i n the  literature  Each w i l l  of the  Long's  be  as  described  (1981a) taxonomy o f  real  together well  as  in  and  a baseline  than the  extensively  MLU  NNS  s p e e c h s a m p l e s . The  measure s i n c e  i n e a r l y L1  research  on  o r words p e r foreigner  discriminated  this  has  T-unit  been shown t o  U t t e r a n c e ) which  a c q u i s i t i o n research first  T-unit  t a l k and  was be  of v a r i a t i o n s i n sentence  (Mean L e n g t h o f  1983:92 f o r d i s c u s s i o n ) . The length  input  f o l l o w i n g d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s were used  a more s e n s i t i v e d i s c r i m i n a t o r  unit  out  Strategies  a n a l y z e b o t h NS  used  employed as  pointed  and  below.  the  syntax  be  c o m p o s i t e measures have been g r o u p e d  Formal Reduction  On  strategies,  i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s w h i c h make  functional properties.  detail  to  s t r a t e g i e s , communication  these v a r i a b l e s are  dependent  has  was  (See  Hatch  d e p e n d e n t measure o f been used  i t has  in  T-  earlier  consistently  between d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f  complexity of  NS  18 speech  addressed  1 981 ). The also  used  t o NNSs  second  ( G a i e s 1976,  Freed  measure o f T - U n i t s p e r  to further  isolate  1978,  speaker  i n s t a n c e s of  Long turn  was  linguistic  simplification. B o t h o f t h e s e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s were d e f i n e d i n terms of  t h e more p r e c i s e measure o f e r r o r - f r e e  t o b e t t e r d i s c r i m i n a t e between t h e proficiency  levels  as w e l l as  t o NNSs i s g r a m m a t i c a l l y has  been shown t o be  distinguishing proficiency free  embedded The adopted from  t o examine whether NS  i n i t which  oral  and  as  n o n c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s a t t a c h e d to or  i s grammatically  o r NSs  adopting  r e p o r t s over  feature  of f o r e i g n e r t a l k  of  issue).  order reject  well-formed".  to r e p l i c a t e  resulted  in  characteristic for a discussion linguistic  previous research i n  evidence  c l a i m s made r e g a r d i n g l e x i c a l  interaction.  is a  (see Long, 1983  t o p r o v i d e more d e f i n i t i v e  resulted  l e v e l NNSs o f  T h i s a d d i t i o n a l measure o f i s designed  was  restricted  a r e a has  whether t h i s  ratio  in lexis  a more  lower  Japanese. Previous research i n t h i s  simplification  error-  "a main c l a u s e p l u s a l l  when i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h  conflicting  T-unit  w r i t t e n language  i n o r d e r t o measure i f v a r i a t i o n s  vocabulary  error-free  d e p e n d e n t measure o f t y p e t o k e n  task complexity  this  . The  speech  l e a r n e r s ( L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , 1983). An  c l a u s e s and  third  different  t h e most r e l i a b l e measure f o r  T - u n i t i s d e f i n e d here  subordinate  learners'  well-formed  between b o t h  o f L2  T-units i n order  to support  variation  or  i n NS-NNS  19 Finally,  the  been i n c l u d e d others  who  four  to v e r i f y  report  NS-NNS t a l k the  f o u r t h measure o f  & NNS  Average l e n g t h of Ratio  2)  Number o f T - u n i t s  3)  Type t o k e n  4)  Words p e r  turn-taking  interacting  are  error-free T-units.  per  speaker  turn  minute.  s t r a t e g i e s examined general  types.  in this First,  it  e x c h a n g e b o u n d a r i e s more t r a n s p a r e n t  with  i n NS-NS and Evidence  and  study  and  imperatives  NNSs. M o r e o v e r , t h e  can  was  would t r y t o make b o t h t o p i c moves  and  by  using  to support  types of q u e s t i o n  t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n NS-  been r e p o r t e d  Higa(1 982)  and  Long  dependent v a r i a b l e s measuring the  by  Freed  forms  NS  (1980), two  relative  of  frequency  s t r a t e g i e s " were:  to  and  (1981 a,1981b). The  " t o p i c encoding communication  a  when  NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n were a l s o e x p e c t e d  NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n has  these  following  ratio  f r e q u e n c y of q u e s t i o n s  Scarcella  The  of e r r o r - f r e e T - u n i t s .  i n t o three  assumed t h a t NSs  vary.  slower r a t e of speech i n  Strategies  communication  classified  used  and  FORMAL REDUCTION STRATEGIES  b)  Communication  higher  a significantly  has  i n p u t v a r i a b l e s w h i c h were examined:  1a)  be  minute'  r e s u l t s of Henzel(1979)  i n c o m p a r i s o n t o NS-NS t a l k .  NS  The  the  'words p e r  20  NS & NNS TOPIC ENCODING COMMUNICATION 3) Number and p r o p o r t i o n  The  and  imperatives  4)  Question-types  second type  examined  variables Faerch, Tarone  intended  i n t h a t they  from t h e s t u d i e s o f Long  a r e used  This  i s achieved  utterance,  NSs or  (1983) and  one common  to embellish  the speakers  n o t be c l e a r t o  by s p e a k e r s e i t h e r  own o r a n o t h e r  repeating  paraphrasing speaker's  r e s t r u c t u r i n g (decomposing) a p r i o r u t t e r a n c e by  o f f i n mid s e n t e n c e and s t a r t i n g by s u b s t i t u t i n g a l e x i c a l  semantic features with latter  (1981a),  (1984), B i a l y s t o k  speaker's utterances,  ( e x p a n d i n g upon) e i t h e r t h e i r  finally  s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h were  meaning w h i c h may f o r some r e a s o n  own o r t h e o t h e r  breaking  on Task 1 & 2.  meaning. The f o l l o w i n g d e p e n d e n t  (1983) T h e s e s t r a t e g i e s s h a r e  listener.  their  on Task 1 & 2.  i n T-units  H a a s t r u p and P h i l l i p s o n  intended  statements  how NSs and NNSs use a l t e r n a t e means t o  were d e r i v e d  attribute  the  their  i n T-units  o f communication  illustrate  communicate  of questions,  STRATEGIES  the target  s t r a t e g y was r e p o r t e d  o v e r a g a i n , and  item which shares item.  certain  An example o f t h i s  by B i a l y s t o k  (1983:106) where  o f E n g l i s h employed F r e n c h words such as ' c h a i s e ( c h a i r ) 1  'table'  picture  (table) to describe  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n task.  a 'tabouret (stool) during a 1  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a NS was  expected  t o employ t h i s  appeared  t h a t t h e NNS d i d n o t p o s s e s s a p a r t i c u l a r  vocabulary  item.  s t r a t e g y of "approximation"  A l l of these  interlanguage  i f i t  s t r a t e g i e s were  21 measured of  i n terms  of t h e i r  f r e q u e n c y w i t h i n t h e t o t a l number  T - u n i t s per dyad:  NS & NNS INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION  5a)  Number o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s  within  b) Number o f s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s c) T o t a l  o f 5a and 5b- t o t a l  STRATEGIES  speaker  turns  a c r o s s speaker  turns  self  repetitions  6) Number o f o t h e r - r e p e t i t i o n s 7) Number o f e x p a n s i o n s / p a r a p h r a s e s 8) Number o f r e s t r u c t u r e d / d e c o m p o s e d  sentences &  fragments 9) Number o f a p p r o x i m a t i o n s 10)  All  R a t i o of 5 through  o f t h e above s t r a t e g i e s  NNSs u s e o n l y one l a n g u a g e second they  language  t o convey  are referred  strategies second  9 combined  which  language.  communication linguistic  b o t h NSs and  without resorting their  originate  t o some o t h e r  meaning. F o r t h i s  i n t h e NS's l a n g u a g e  In c o n t r a s t ,  the t h i r d  s t r a t e g i e s which  reason,  reflect  their  o n l y when  crossThese  either  i n t e n d e d meaning i n one  language  and a r e s u b s e q u e n t l y f o r c e d  language  which  t o word b o r r o w i n g  1  o f both speakers.  s t r a t e g i e s " a r e used  both p a r t i e s  o r t h e NNS s  group o f  were s t u d i e d  on t h e p a r t  t h e NS o r NNS c a n n o t convey  may r e s o r t  that  t o as " i n t e r l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s " ,  borrowing  "intralanguage  require  i n T-units  to rely  on a n o t h e r  know. I n such c a s e s , where t h e y  speakers  "foreignize" the  morphology  or phonology  was p r e d i c t e d to  of a l e x i c a l  t o be e s p e c i a l l y  t h e l a r g e number o f E n g l i s h  i t e m . Such  prevalent  a strategy  i n this  s t u d y due  l o a n words i n modern  J a p a n e s e . B o t h NSs and NNSs o f J a p a n e s e were e x p e c t e d t o resort of  to this  competence  strategy  1  i n Japanese.  Alternatively, which  t o compensate f o r a N N S s low l e v e l  a second type o f i n t r a l a n g u a g e  b o t h NSs and NNSs were p r e d i c t e d  translation' translated  where an E n g l i s h  t o u s e was  t h e use o f t h i s  strategy  among  (1983:106) Anglophone  Canadians  who u s e d  fireplace  and " p i e c e de temps" f o r t i m e p i e c e . The u s e o f  such a s t r a t e g y this  s u c h terms  'literal  term o r p h r a s e was m e r e l y  i n t o Japanese. Again, B i a l y s t o k  illustrates  strategy  by NSs may seem o d d , b u t NSs may  a s b e i n g one way o f accommodating  partner's  lack  o f competence  (1983:179) has p o i n t e d may be t r i g g e r e d proficiency, situational Since  latter  use  of this  relative The  t h e NS's p r i o r  two v a r i a b l e s , strategy  degree  for their  type of ungrammatical  foreign  talk  FT  experience or the  the i n t e r a c t i o n  takes  one p o s s i b l e  o f competence  place.  study c o n t r o l l e d f o r explanation  by b o t h NSs and NNSs would  intralanguage  NNS  t h e NNS's low l e v e l o f  c o n t e x t i n which  third  predicted other  out, this  by e i t h e r  perceive  i n t h e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e . As Long  the sampling procedure i n t h i s  the  This  as " p l a c e de f e u " f o r  f o r the  be t h e NNSs'  i n Japanese.  strategy  o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g was  t o o c c u r when b o t h t h e NS and NNS had u s e d up  r e s o u r c e s f o r communicating  their  i n t e n d e d meaning.  assumed, as do t h e o t h e r two i n t r a l a n g u a g e  strategies,  that  t h e NS had a c c e s s  Again,  the sampling  controlled Japanese  f o r this  to the learner's f i r s t  procedure  v a r i a b l e through  s u b j e c t s who r e p o r t e d  competence instruction  i n high  of  this  it  a restricted  strategies  i n NS-NS c o n v e r s a t i o n s ,  could  the use  was however,  answer one o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s o f  which p r e d i c t e d t h a t a h i g h e r would o c c u r  frequency  lower  level  l e a r n e r s of Japanese. S i m i l a r l y ,  lower  level  l e a r n e r s was p r e d i c t e d t o use t h e s e  s t r a t e g i e s more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n transfer  from t h e i r  advanced  l e a r n e r s were e x p e c t e d  of these  when NSs were matched  advanced  this  with  group o f  kinds of  l e a r n e r s because of  n a t i v e l a n g u a g e whereas t h e more  interlanguage  intralanguage  which  meaning. Of c o u r s e ,  of s t r a t e g i e s  L2 b a s e d  subjects  with E n g l i s h  kinds  of  of English  vocabulary  two i n t r a l a n g u a g e  t o be n o n e x i s t e n t  study  s i x years  low  upon i n i n s t a n c e s where t h e NNS  was i n c l u d e d i n o r d e r  this  t o have e x t r e m e l y  t h e NS's i n t e n d e d  and t h e o t h e r  expected  the s e l e c t i o n of  t o have some f a m i l i a r i t y  have been c a l l e d  comprehend  partially  s c h o o l , a l l t h e NS J a p a n e s e  grammar a s w e l l a s h a v i n g  not  study  i n E n g l i s h . However, a f t e r  were c o n s i d e r e d  could  i n this  language.  t o employ a h i g h e r  strategies.  frequency  Once a g a i n , a l l  s t r a t e g i e s were measured i n r a t i o t o t h e t o t a l  number o f T - u n i t s p e r d y a d : NS & NNS  INTRALANGUAGE  COMMUNICATION  11)  Number o f l e x i c a l  items  12)  Number o f l i t e r a l  translations  13)  Number o f  14)  R a t i o o f 11 t h r o u g h  STRATEGIES  foreignized  code-switches 13 combined  i n T-units  24  Repair  In  Strategies  p r e v i o u s FT r e s e a r c h ,  been r e p o r t e d  a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e has  i n t h e amount o f r e p a i r w h i c h t a k e s p l a c e i n  NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n the  literature).  ( s e e Long, 1983 f o r r e v i e w o f  I n t h i s s t u d y , Long and P o r t e r ' s  c o m p o s i t e measure o f r e p a i r was u s e d  to analyze  (1984) both  NS-NS a n d NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n . As i n t h e c a s e o f t h e t h r e e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s u s e d t o examine communication "appeals absent  to  t h i s overt  t o see i f lower l e v e l  advanced  strategy  learners.  a greater  dependent v a r i a b l e of  was e x p e c t e d  i n NS-NS c o n v e r s a t i o n s .  order  that  s t r a t e g i e s , the fourth  for assistance"  in  intralanguage  t o be  noticeably  However, i t was learners  included  of Japanese  o f r e p a i r more f r e q u e n t l y  resorted  than  One o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s o f t h i s s t u d y was  amount o f r e p a i r would o c c u r  i n t h e more  complex t a s k 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  less  t h e amount and t y p e o f  complex t a s k and s e c o n d l y  that  NS a n d NNS r e p a i r work would v a r y a c c o r d i n g proficiency  o f t h e NNS. The f o u r  make up t h e c o m p o s i t e v a r i a b l e listed  below. A g a i n ,  variables T-units  i n one d y a d :  dependent v a r i a b l e s  of "repair  which  strategies" are  the frequency o f these  were c a l c u l a t e d  t o the  dependent  as a r a t i o t o t h e t o t a l  number o f  25  NS & NNS REPAIR STRATEGIES 1 5  Number o f c o n f i r m a t i o n  1 6  Number o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n  checks  1 7  Number o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n  requests  1 8  Number o f a p p e a l s  a  verification  b  definition  c  lexical  1 9  Ratio  checks  f o r assistance  o f meaning  request  uncertainty  o f 15 t h r o u g h  18 combined  Hypotheses  In t h i s discussed  chapter,  a number o f h y p o t h e s e s have a l r e a d y  and r e s e a r c h  cited  outcomes p r e d i c t e d . In t h i s hypotheses w i l l stated  as d i r e c t i o n a l  accepting in  be p r e s e n t e d  Chapter  Hypothesis  or r e j e c t i n g  t o support  been  the p o s s i b l e  s e c t i o n , each o f t h e main again.  A l l hypotheses w i l l  be  h y p o t h e s e s . The c r i t e r i o n f o r these  hypotheses w i l l  be d e s c r i b e d i n  4.  # 1  There w i l l for  be a s i g n i f i c a n t main  effect  p r o f i c i e n c y on t h e number o f f o r m a l  reduction,  c o m m u n i c a t i o n and r e p a i r  s t r a t e g i e s NSs u s e when i n t e r a c t i n g NNSs o f J a p a n e s e .  with  26 Sub-Hypotheses  a) J a p a n e s e NSs w i l l  u s e more  reduction,  communication  strategies  with  and r e p a i r  low l e v e l  Japanese than with advanced  learners  of  i n t e r m e d i a t e and  learners.  b) J a p a n e s e NSs w i l l  use more  reduction,  communication  strategies  with  of  formal  formal  and r e p a i r  intermediate  learners  J a p a n e s e t h a n w i t h advanced  learners  of  Japanese.  c ) J a p a n e s e NSs w i l l  use more  reduction,communication strategies of  w i t h advanced  either  for  strategies  interlanguage than  i n t e r m e d i a t e o r advanced  There w i l l  u s e more  communication  t h a n L 2 based  communication  # 2  learners  NNSs o f J a p a n e s e w i l l  based i n t r a l a n g u a g e  strategies  Hypothesis  and r e p a i r  J a p a n e s e t h a n w i t h NSs o f J a p a n e s e .  d) Low l e v e l L1  formal  learners.  be a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t  t a s k on t h e number o f f o r m a l  reduction,  communication  strategies  NSs u s e when i n t e r a c t i n g  NNSs o f J a p a n e s e .  and r e p a i r with  Sub-hypotheses  a) J a p a n e s e NS w i l l  communication  strategies  when i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h  less  # 3  formal  reduction,  t h e more complex  Hypothesis  u s e more  complex  There w i l l effect  task  task  and r e p a i r  ( t a s k 2)  (task  NNSs i n  than  i n the  1).  be a s i g n i f i c a n t  interaction  f o r p r o f i c i e n c y and t a s k on t h e  number o f f o r m a l communication  reduction,  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 w i t h  NNSs o f  Japanese. Sub-hypotheses  a) NSs w i l l  u s e more f o r m a l  communication  reduction,  and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on t h e ( t a s k 2)  more complex  task  on t h e l e s s  complex  task  ( t a s k 1) w i t h  l e a r n e r s than  with  either  level  intermediate  b) NSs w i l l  communication  on t h e l e s s intermediate advanced  on t h e low  o r advanced l e a r n e r s .  u s e more f o r m a l  more complex  than  reduction,  and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on t h e task  (task 2)  complex  task  than  on t h e  ( t a s k 1)  l e a r n e r s than  with  with  either  l e a r n e r s o r NSs o f J a p a n e s e .  28  NSs w i l l  u s e more f o r m a l  communication  reduction,  and r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s on t h e  more complex t a s k  ( t a s k 2) t h a n  on t h e  less  ( t a s k 1) w i t h  advanced  complex t a s k  learners  than  Low l e v e l L1  based  with  NSs o f J a p a n e s e .  NNSs o f J a p a n e s e w i l l intralanguage  strategies  than  communication  u s e more  communication  L2 b a s e d  interlanguage  s t r a t e g i e s on t h e more  complex t a s k  ( t a s k 2) t h a n  on t h e l e s s  complex t a s k  ( t a s k 1) t h a n  either  intermediate  o r advanced l e a r n e r s .  29  CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY  Design  The  study  variance  i s b a s e d on a 2 X 4 f a c t o r i a l  design  with  one r e p e a t e d  analysis of  measure. The 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 ( F a c t o r A) r e p r e s e n t s the  first  f a c t o r with  intermediate of  task  four l e v e l s  ( NS-NS, N S - h i g h NNS, NS-  NNS, and NS-low NNS) w h i l e  complexity  ( F a c t o r B) w i t h  represents  two l e v e l s  the second v a r i a b l e  the repeated  measures  factor  (task 1 & 2 ) .  Subjects  A m e r i c a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e exchange s t u d e n t s with  Japanese  1 s t year  university  students  were matched t o complete 2  1 tasks.  A total  elementary,  o f 12 A m e r i c a n  4 intermediate  J a p a n e s e . The l e v e l placement as  testing  students  and 4 a d v a n c e d  to place  learners of  o f p r o f i c i e n c y was b a s e d on t h e  b a t t e r y u s e d by t h e Department o f J a p a n e s e  a Second Language a t t h e K a n s a i  Studies  were s e l e c t e d : 4  students  i n three  University of Foreign levels  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 c o m p l e t e d 4 t a s k s . The l a t t e r two t a s k s have been d r o p p e d from t h i s a n a l y s i s i n o r d e r t o s i m p l i f y t h e d e s i g n o f t h e s t u d y . These t a s k s were a l t e r n a t e forms o f t a s k 1 & 2 where t h e NNS s u b j e c t s d i r e c t e d t h e NS s u b j e c t s . T h i s was d e s i g n e d t o measure d i f f e r e n c e s i n NNS p r o d u c t i o n a c r o s s p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l s . T h i s d a t a w i l l be examined a t a l a t e r date i n a seperate p u b l i c a t i o n .  30 l a n g u a g e p r o g r a m . The point  from o r a l i n t e r v i e w s  classes  placement  ( See  who  teachers wished  researcher  and  subjects  was  subjects,  only  the  the  commencement point  those  the  information generally  students  a  contacted  by  the  given  speaker  were a c c e p t e d  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n  by  the  the  r e g i s t r a t i o n form,  i n d i c a t e the  answering  in  of  extremely l i m i t e d  name on  to  linguistic  non-native speakers  Japanese n a t i v e  were a s k e d t o  translated  requesting  basis  had  their  exposure to f o r e i g n e r s  be  only  s t u d e n t s who  foreigners  Japanese subjects  and  a volunteer  t h e i r names on  s t u d y was  native  case of  s t u d y . When s i g n i n g  I have:  classes  they could  d a t e . The  that  involved  with  that  a later  In  w h i c h was  p a r t i c i p a t e d on  respective  f o r m so  Japanese.  contact  p r i o r t o the  Appendix A f o r copy of d i s c r e t e  i n the  at  subjects  nature  given  to p a r t i c i p a t e to s i g n  registration  the  discrete  test).  Both groups of with  of  t e s t s i n a d d i t i o n t o a g l o b a l p r o f i c i e n c y measure  derived of  placement t e s t c o n s i s t e d  the  amount  following  the  of  question  i n t o Japanese:  (a)  n e v e r had a c h a n c e t o speak w i t h a foreigner.  (b)  o n l y spoken w i t h a f o r e i g n e r my life.  once o r  twice  (c) s p o k e n w i t h 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 countries.  (f)  l i v e d o v e r s e a s f o r an time.  foreign  extended p e r i o d  of  in  31 The  reason  s u b j e c t s who  such had  limited  FT d i s c o u r s e may refers  t o as  be  "prior  manifestation classroom  c a r e was  taken  of t h i s  Japanese  e x p o s u r e t o f o r e i g n e r s was  greatly FT  in selecting  affected  experience". can be  seen  that  by what L o n g ( 1 9 8 3 ) The  most  i n the  obvious  second  language  where E S L / F L t e a c h e r s make a d j u s t m e n t s  which i n  some cases, a p p e a r t o h i n d e r r a t h e r t h a n a i d c o m p r e h e n s i o n ( C h a u d r o n , 1983 studies  ; Long and  t h a t has  (1981) s e l e c t e d only  had  a l s o who also  Sato,  investigated  1983). In one  J a p a n e s e FT,  Japanese n a t i v e speaker  r e s i d e d overseas  f o r an  participated  Skoutarides  i n the study.  g e n e r a l i z e s her  Australian  beyond  immediate p o p u l a t i o n to " n a t i v e speakers w h e r e a s i t i s much more l i k e l y reflect  in  to g e n e r a l i z e the f i n d i n g s  larger  On  foreigner talk  p o p u l a t i o n , the e f f e c t s  controlled  f o r through  the b a s i s of the r e g i s t r a t i o n  equal  number o f males and  females  control  f o r moderator v a r i a b l e s  were an  equal  t h e age  of the  similar  procedure  with  NNS  such  number o f same sex and s u b j e c t s r a n g i n g from  American  was  of  FT  t h e above s a m p l i n g  used  study  NS  Therefore, to a were  procedure. 24 J a p a n e s e  12 NS-NS dyads  participating. as age  and  sex,  mixed sex dyads t o 20  t o match t h e NS  s u b j e c t s by  Japanese"  experience  forms,  18  who  her  of t h i s  of p r i o r  but  findings,  experience.  s u b j e c t s were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o form an  students  t h a t the r e a c t i o n s of her  subjects order  prior  not  p e r i o d of time  In r e p o r t i n g h e r  results  few  Skoutarides  s u b j e c t s who  extended  a l r e a d y knew t h e n o n - n a t i v e  of the  NS with  To there with  years. A  Japanese s u b j e c t s  r a n d o m l y a s s i g n i n g 12  of  the  24 NS s u b j e c t s  t o NS-NNS d y a d s . However, s i n c e  t w i c e a s many NNS m a l e s i n t h e a d v a n c e d were f e m a l e s , i t was n o t p o s s i b l e number  o f same s e x a n d mixed  effort  was made t o c o n t r o l  the  limited  s i z e o f t h e NNS  t h e r e were  c l a s s e s as t h e r e  t o have e x a c t l y  t h e same  s e x NS-NNS d y a d s , a l t h o u g h an  f o r s e x a s much as p o s s i b l e  given  population.  Materials  Description  of Tasks  Two t a s k s were c h o s e n , b o t h o f which were c o n s i d e r e d as one-way  tasks.  The f i r s t  t a s k was a p i c t u r e  recognition  t a s k . One member o f t h e dyad was g i v e n a s e t o f 20 c o l o r photographs of  g l u e d o n t o a s h e e t o f c a r d b o a r d t o form a g r i d  pictures.  identical placed  The s e c o n d member o f t h e dyad was g i v e n an  s e t o f 20 p h o t o g r a p h s  i n an e n v e l o p e . The s u b j e c t w i t h t h e c o m p l e t e d  of photographs  was a s k e d t o i n s t r u c t  arrange the photographs on t h e m a s t e r The  b u t t h e s e were c u t o u t and grid  his/her partner to  i n t h e same o r d e r a s t h e y a p p e a r e d  cardboard sheet.  second t a s k ,  originally  u s e d by Y u l e  more r e c e n t l y  adopted  by A v e r y , E h r l i c h  study prosody  i n FT d i s c o u r s e , was a p i c t u r e  (1979,  and Y o r i o  1981) and (1985) t o  reconstruction  t a s k . One member o f t h e dyad was g i v e n a s h e e t o f p a p e r divided The  into  sixteen  s q u a r e s i n w h i c h o b j e c t s were drawn.  o t h e r member o f t h e dyad was g i v e n a s h e e t o f p a p e r  w h i c h had t h e same s i x t e e n s q u a r e g r i d objects asked in  drawn. The NS s u b j e c t w i t h  to direct  the completed  h i s / h e r NNS p a r t n e r  samples o f t h e f i r s t  any  sheet  was  t o draw t h e same o b j e c t s  t h e c o r r e c t l o c a t i o n on t h e b l a n k  contains  but without  sheet.  and s e c o n d  Appendix  'B'  task.  Procedure  The  t a s k s were a d m i n i s t e r e d  language For  l a b a t the Kansai  t h e NS-NS d y a d s ,  given The  discuss  were s u p p o s e d  University of Foreign  Studies.  upon e n t e r i n g t h e r e c o r d i n g  were a s k e d  the tasks  studio i n the  i n s t r u c t i o n s w r i t t e n i n J a p a n e s e were  to a l l subjects  subjects  i n a recording  to read  t o make s u r e  studio.  t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s and t h e n they  u n d e r s t o o d what  t o d o . They were t h e n t o l d  they  t o have f i v e  minutes of f r e e conversation  i n order  partner.  t h e room and went t o t h e  The r e s e a r c h e r  adjoining  room t o s w i t c h  transaction.  left  on t h e t a p e t o r e c o r d  The s u b j e c t s were l e f t  no t i m e d i d t h e y  t o g e t t o know  see the r e s e a r c h e r  alone  toten their  this  initial  t o c o n v e r s e and a t  during  this  warm-up  exercise. At  t h e end o f t h i s  first  task  around  the researcher  and a s k e d one o f t h e s u b j e c t s  brought  partition breaking  the task. or screen  the v i s u a l  meant t h a t  i n the  to turn h i s chair  so t h a t h e / s h e c o u l d n o t s e e h i s / h e r p a r t n e r  completing  this  period,  when  T h i s p r o c e d u r e was a d o p t e d s i n c e a was n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e as a way o f contact  between p a r t i c i p a n t s . Of  the p a r a - l i n g u i s t i c  features of the  course,  34  i n t e r a c t i o n were n o t s t u d i e d . The  s u b j e c t s were a l l o w e d  m i n u t e s and a t t h a t time the  room a n d c o l l e c t e d  administered researcher  t o complete t h e task f o r t e n  the researcher  partial order  t h e room a n d r e t u r n e d  as  completing  without  complete randomization i n  t h e more c o m p l e x t a s k . The r e a s o n  task  (photo  grid).  The p h o t o g r i d  task  t o h e r e a f t e r as t a s k 1 and t h e d r a w i n g  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 t h e t a s k s t o t h e NNS-NS t o t h e p r o c e d u r e u s e d w i t h t h e NS-NS  d y a d s 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 the researcher  i n Japanese  s i n c e some o f t h e NNS s u b j e c t s were n o t  t o r e a d J a p a n e s e k a n j i . The s u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n 10  m i n u t e s t o d i s c u s s t h e t a s k s and i n t r o d u c e themselves to and  task  2.  d y a d s was i d e n t i c a l  able  task  task) d i d not influence the subjects interaction i n 2  be r e f e r r e d  The  by  complex  p r o c e d u r e was a d o p t e d was s o t h a t t h e more c o m p l e x  l e s s complex t a s k  will  recorder.  t o ensure t h a t a l l subjects completed the l e s s  (drawing the  to the adjoining  i n w h i c h t h e t a s k s were c o m p l e t e d was b a s e d on  counter-balancing  task before this  t a s k and  t h e m a t e r i a l s f o r t h e second t a s k . Then, t h e  left  order  entered  t h e m a t e r i a l s from t h e f i r s t  r e c o r d i n g room t o t u r n on t h e t a p e The  once a g a i n  beginning  the f i r s t  t a s k . 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  r e c o r d i n g t h e t a s k s was t h e same a s i n t h e NS-NS  recording  prior  sessions.  2 . T h i s t u r n e d o u t t o be a s e r i o u s f l a w i n t h e research design since the administration of tasks 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 n o t be r e r u n due t o c o n s t r a i n t s o f time and a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s u b j e c t s .  35  C h a p t e r IV  Data  Analysis  Once a l l t h e r e c o r d i n g s were c o m p l e t e d , transcribed. in  The f i r s t  the analysis  minute  randomly and  o f e a c h t a s k was n o t  and t h e n e x t 5 m i n u t e s  a n a l y z e d . From t h e o r i g i n a l  included  o f s p e e c h were  12 NS-NS d y a d s ,  c h o s e n as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  u s e d as a b a s e l i n e  t h e t a p e s were  of this  corpus t o conduct  NS  4 dyads  were  population  statistical  comparisons  w i t h t h e t h e t h r e e NS-NNS d y a d s .  illustrates  the subjects'  T a b l e 1.0  below  g r o u p i n g and amount o f d a t a  transcribed: TABLE  1.0  TRANSCRIPTION  DYADS  NS-NS  N  NS-HIGH NNS  (4)  TIMES  NS-INTERMEDIATE  (4)  NNS  NS-LOW  (4)  (4)  Task  1  5 min  5 min  5 min  5 min  Task  2  5 min  5 min  5 min  5 min  10 min  10 min  10 min  10 min  Total  Total  All native  Transcription  = 40 m i n u t e s  t r a n s c r i p t i o n s were c h e c k e d by two f e m a l e s p e a k e r s and any  Due t o c o n s t r a i n t s  'error-full'  NNS  Japanese  u t t e r a n c e s were marked.  o f t i m e and money i n t e r r a t e r  reliability  could it  n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d . Once a l l t h e d a t a had been  was  well  then e n t e r e d i n t o a microcomputer  using Wordstar,  known word p r o c e s s o r and a l l i n t e r a c t i o n s were  using  t h e 32 d e p e n d e n t  variables described  F r e q u e n c i e s were t h e n c a l c u l a t e d  checked  coded  i n Chapter  f o r each dependent  2.  variable  by r u n n i n g a s o f t w a r e c o n c o r d a n c e program  (The Word  CPM  c o m p r i s i n g the  NS  2.2) and  on e a c h o f t h e 32 document f i l e s NS-NNS d a t a c o r p u s f o r b o t h Task  files)  and T a s k  frequencies tasks,  2  f o r a l l 32 d e p e n d e n t  a total  frequencies Using  (16 document f i l e s ) .  v a r i a b l e was  i n the f i r s t  24  NS-NS dyad  words and  words p e r T - u n i t .  self  repetitions,  12 a c r o s s  102  i n task  In t h e same dyad  12 w i t h i n  carried  These The  first  column  a total and  (24/102=11.77).  The measures  o f t h e number o f i n s t a n c e s o f a v a r i a b l e f o r each  the f i r s t  table.  independent v a r i a b l e  proficiency  ( g r o u p c o d i n g s were NS-NS ( 1 ) , NS-HIGH NNS  NS-INT. NNS  (3) and  NS-LOW NNS  ( 4 ) ) . The  to  dyad.  were t h e n e n t e r e d i n t o a s t a t i s t i c a l coded  of  self  o u t f o r a l l 32 dependent  number o f T - u n i t s p e r t a s k ratios  t h e r e was  a r a t i o of  same p r o c e d u r e was  total  an a v e r a g e o f  t h e same s p e a k e r t u r n  T - u n i t s o f 11.77%  the  1, t h e r e were a  T-units yielding  speaker t u r n s , y i e l d i n g  a ratio  ratio.  i n each d a t a c o r p u s . F o r  repetitions within  yielding  individual  converted to a percentage i n  example,  5.59  both  as a b a s e l i n e measure, t h e f r e q u e n c y o f  t o t h e number o f T - u n i t s  o f 878  NS-  yielded  variables across  relation  total  This  f o r e a c h word used and a t y p e t o k e n  each dependent  Plus,  1 (16 document  word c o u n t f o r e a c h f i l e ,  the T - u n i t  a  remaining 2  of (2), columns  37 were made up o f t h e c a l c u l a t e d independent v a r i a b l e c o l u m n 2 and t a s k format using units  i n task  frequencies  or repeated  measures f a c t o r  2- column 3 ) . T a b l e  the calculated  o f the second  1.1 i l l u s t r a t e s  ratio of self  TABLE 1.1 SELF REPETITION  NS-NS DYADS  NS-HIGH NNS  NS-INT NNS  NS-LOW NNS  CODING  this  r e p e t i t i o n t o T-  1 and 2 f o r a l l 4 g r o u p s :  GROUP  ( t a s k 1-  TASK 1  TASK ;  1  1 3.42  23.53  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  2  8.65  13.30  2  7.96  7.97  3  12.45  1 9.49  3  9.67  1 8.84  3  10.20  1 9.40  3  8.48  21 .72  4  11.36  14.56  4  8.99  16.17  4  18.28  14.19  4  15.67  24.32  38  Similar  tables  r e p r e s e n t i n g each of  m e a s u r e s were c o n s t r u c t e d through S t a t f a s t using  the  1980  for  from  this  B  A  of  the  interaction  deviations  significance  level  of  found  for  factor  using  the  Scheffe test  A,  for  of  the  F ratios  t h e r e was  significant  only  effect tests  was  levels.  found  The  Chapter  then  for  package  (see  Huitema,  output  A  (proficiency),  w e l l as  mean s c o r e s  NS-LOW NNS). for  If  a  testing  Factor  A the  significant  hypotheses F ratio  c o m p a r i s o n s were c a r r i e d  out  (see  Shavelson,  in f a c t o r i a l designs). for  difference  if a  was  i f t h e r e were  between g r o u p s  proficiency  out  run  4 g r o u p s c o d e d under  to determine  Finally,  . The  factors  A X B as  set  were f o u n d  resulting V.  for  factor  B,  this  across both task  v a r i a b l e being analyzed  were c a r r i e d  groups. in  two  was  Scheffe test  significant  specific  the  p o s t hoc  differences  a  of  i n C h a p t e r 2.  significant use  for  .05  earlier  had  dependent  statistical  statistic)  NS-INT NNS,  described  the  this  p r o g r a m gave F r a t i o s  (NS-NS, NS-HIGH NNS,  for  manner and  a microcomputer  a discussion  standard  the  32  Anova w i t h R e p e a t e d M e a s u r e s program  ( t a s k ) and  and  2.0,  in this  the  since this  significant  and  task  (A  1982 If  indicated types variable  interaction  X B),  post  hoc  a c r o s s m a r g i n a l means f o r a l l f o u r statistical  analysis w i l l  be  reported  39 Chapter 5  Results  In data  t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , a summary o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e analysis will  be d i s c u s s e d  main h y p o t h e s e s p r e s e n t e d findings  i n relation  t o the three  i n C h a p t e r 2. F i r s t ,  the general  r e l a t e d t o e a c h o f t h e main h y p o t h e s e s w i l l be  reported,  followed  by t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n  ANOVA t e s t s and p o s t  hoc comparisons  measuring m o d i f i c a t i o n s  i n input  of the r e s u l t s of the  f o rthe variables  (reduction  s t r a t e g i e s ) and  the  composite v a r i a b l e s measuring communication  and  r e p a i r . Secondly,  individual will  strategies  t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e ANOVA t e s t s f o r t h e  v a r i a b l e s w h i c h made up t h e s e c o m p o s i t e v a r i a b l e s  be t a k e n up i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t d i s c u s s i o n . A c o m p l e t e  summary o f t h e ANOVA t a b l e s f o r a l l 32 d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s can  be f o u n d  i n A p p e n d i x C.  Summary o f R e s u l t s  The  first  significant input  f o r Main  main h y p o t h e s i s  Hypotheses  which p r e d i c t e d  d i f f e r e n c e s would emerge i n t h e c o m p l e x i t y  directed to learners at different  proficiency  was p a r t i a l l y  were o b t a i n e d  supported. S i g n i f i c a n t  per turn  using  F  values  of T-unit  (F=10.94), words p e r m i n u t e  (F=5.18), a n d t h e t y p e t o k e n r a t i o conducted  of  l e v e l s of  f o r t h e f o u r measures o f l e n g t h  (F=3.64), T - u n i t s  comparisons  that  (F=6.51). P o s t hoc  the Scheffe  procedure  revealed  40 significant four  between g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s  variables  f o r three of these  with the exception of the f i r s t  Words p e r T - U n i t . When a w e i g h t e d S c h e f f e t e s t  measure o f was u s e d t o  compare t h e mean o f t h e p o o l e d NS-NS and NS-High NNS with  t h e two o t h e r  latter  variable,  significant in two  T-unit  ratio  also  compared  t h e r e was c o n s i s t e n t  variation  Similarly,  into  two o t h e r measures o f  T - u n i t s p e r t u r n and t h e t y p e t o k e n  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t and l e x i c a l  trend  indicating  greater  c o m p l e x i t y i n t h e NS-NS c o r p u s when  t o t h e t h r e e NS-NNS g r o u p s .  Tables  1.2 t h r o u g h 1.9 show t h e means a c r o s s b o t h  results  addition following of  of p r o f i c i e n c y .  specifically,  syntactic  and  indicating  although not  l e n g t h when t h e f o u r g r o u p s were c o l l a p s e d  levels  input,  l o w e r p r o f i c i e n c y NS-NNS g r o u p s f o r t h i s  t h e r e was a s t r o n g ,  trend,  dyads  of the Scheffe  tests  f o r each i n p u t v a r i a b l e . I n  t o p a i r wise comparisons, the r e s u l t s s i x weighted Scheffe  each t a b l e :  tests  w e i g h t e d mean o f t h e 3 NS-NNS dyads  NS-Low NNS dyads  compared  f o r the  a r e shown a t t h e bottom  1) t h e mean o f t h e NS-NS dyads  & N S - H i g h NNS dyads  tasks  compared  to  2) t h e mean o f t h e NS-NS  t o mean o f t h e N S - I n t NNS and  and 3) t h e mean o f t h e NS-NS dyads  compared  t o t h e w e i g h t e d mean o f t h e N S - I n t NNS & NS-Low NNS d y a d s t h e mean o f t h e NS-High NNS dyads  compared  t h e N S - I n t NNS and NS-Low NNS dyads Low NNS dyads NNS d y a d s other mean  compared  5) t h e mean o f t h e NS-  t o t h e mean o f NS-High NNS and N S - I n t to the  (NS-NS, NS-High NNS, NS-Int NNS). The o v e r a l l  (average from t a s k  groups  t o t h e mean o f  and 6) t h e mean o f t h e NS-Low NNS compared  3 groups  4)  i s listed  1 (S) & 2 ( C ) ) f o r e a c h o f t h e 4  a t t h e t o p o f each S c h e f f e  table:  41  TABLE 1.2 Words Per T-Unit  s=  C = Complex Task 2  Simplex Task 1  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S  3.18 3.85 3.33 3.42 2.90 2.82 3.05 2.91  .21 1.19 .05 .24 .31 .28 .73 .35  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS  c s c  NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  TABLE 1 .3 Scheffe Test  Group  NS-NS  Group No.  1  Mean S & C  3.52  1  NS-HIGH NNS  NS-INT NNS  2  3  4  3.38  2.86  2.98  .60  2.81  2.30  2.21  1.70  2 3  .51  1 - 2/3/4 = 2.33 2 -  NS-LOW NN  3/4 = 2.26  p<.05 ( .05, 3,1 2)  1/2 - 3/4 = 3.19 4 - 2/3 =  .69  .  1  - 3/4 = 2.95  4 -1/2/3= 1.43  42  TABLE 1.4 T-Units  Per Turn  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  1.49 1 .50 1 .52 1.56 1 .76 1 .81 1 .57 1.74  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  STDV  N  .24 .08 .17 .16 .35 .11 .17 .06  TABLE 1.5 Scheffe  Group G r o u p No. Mean S & C  NS -NS  Test  NS-HIGH NNS  NS-INT NNS  1  2  1 .49  1.54  1.78  1 .65  1.00  5.80  3.20  1  ** 4.80  3  2.20 2.60  1 - 2/3/4 = 4.08*  p<.05  4  3  2  2 - 3/4  NS -LOW NNS  * 4.04 p<.01  112  -  3/4 = 5 . 6 5  4 - 2/3 =  .23  1 - 3/4 = 5.20 4-1/2/3 = 1.14  **  43  TABLE 1.6 Words P e r M i n u t e GROUP  TASK  NNS  NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  STDV  1 44 94 131 80 1 95 25 1 24 80 182 95 1 29,30 118 60 95 65  S C S C S C S C  NS-NS NS-HIGH  MEAN  48 24 27 33 1 1 12 23 1 1  N  47 07 1 3 07 51 64 1 1 65  4 4 4 4  TABLE 1.7 Scheffe  Group  NS-NS  G r o u p No. Mean S & C  NS-HIGH  NNS  1  2  138.37  160.03  1  1 .44  Test  NS-INT NNS 3  4  156.13  107.13  1.19  2.08  .26  3.53  2 3  3.27  1 - 2/3/4 = 2 p<.05  NS-LOW NNS  .22  3/4 = 2.19  1/2 - 3/4 = 1.66 4 - 2/3 = 3.92*  1 - 3/4 = .52 4 -1/2/3=3.63*  44  TABLE 1.8 Type T o k e n  Ratio  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C  .60 .46 .47 .44 .52 .44 .51 .45  .04 .04 .06 .06 .08 .02 .08 .05  NS-HIGH  s c s c s c  NNS  NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  TABLE 1.9 Scheffe  Group  NS-NS  G r o u p No. Mean  NS-HIGH  Test  NNS  NS-INT NNS  NS-LOW NNS  1  2  3  4  .53  .46  .48  .48  3.16  3.16  1.26  1 .26  kk  1  4.43  2 3  0 k*k  1 - 2/3/4 = 4.39 2 -  3/4 = 1 . 46  *p<.05 **p<.01  -k  1/2 - 3/4 = 1.34 4 - 2/3 =  ...73  1 -  3/4 = 3.65  4 -1 /2/3 =  .78  45  Initial  differences  i n the frequency  of i n t e r a c t i o n a l  modifications  between t h e f o u r g r o u p s were f o u n d  two c o m p o s i t e  m e a s u r e s o f i n t r a l a n g u a g e (F=3.42) and r e p a i r  strategies  (F=4.69). The f a c t  was  void  almost  accounted the  significant  t h e NS-NS b a s e l i n e d a t a  o f any i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s most  f o rthe f i r s t  second  that  f o r the  composite  of these  initial  differences. For  variable of repair,  difference  i n the frequency  likely  t h e r e was a o f r e p a i r between  t h e NS-NS and t h e NS-low NNS d y a d s . S i m i l a r l y , when a weighted  Scheffe test  was u s e d  t o compare t h e f r e q u e n c y o f  repair  strategies  dyads,  a s t r o n g t r e n d emerged i n d i c a t i n g  occurred did  i n t h e NS-NS d y a d s w i t h t h e t h r e e NS-NNS repair  when NSs were a d d r e s s i n g NNSs, a l t h o u g h t h i s  not reach  t h e .05 l e v e l  t h e means and T a b l e test  t h a t more  of significance.  2.2 shows t h e r e s u l t s  f o r the composite  T a b l e 2.1  result shows  of the Scheffe  variable of intralanguage  strategies:  TABLE 2.1 Intralanguage GROUP  TASK  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  Strategies MEAN  .00 .37 .79 2.36 3.21 4.83 5.44 5.55  STDV .00 .47 .78 2.47 3.32 3.13 4.55 4.35  N  4 4 4 4  46  TABLE  2.2  Intralanguage-Scheffe  Group  NS-NS  G r o u p No.  NS-HIGH NNS  1.  Mean S & C  .18  Test  NS-INT NNS  2  3  1.57  4.02  75 2  NS-LOW 4  5.50  2.10  2.90  1 .34  2.15  3  .81 1  - 2/3/4  =  2.36  1 & 2 - 3/4  = 3.01  1 -  2  -  =  2.02  4 - 2/3  = 1.71  4-1/2/3  p<  3/4  3/4  =  2.89  =2.40  .05  The groups  second d i f f e r e n c e indicated  that  i n the  frequency of  repair  were i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h NNSs, and  with  learners.  lower l e v e l  previous research most n o t i c e a b l e  on  FT  i n t e r a c t i o n . Among t h e  clarification  of  requests  no  reported  six variables the  the  with  t h i s t o be and  w h i c h made up  frequency  initial  proficiency  g r o u p means u s i n g  however, r e v e a l e d  especially  between NS-NS d i s c o u r s e  showed an  work  result i s consistent  repair, only  between g r o u p s f a c t o r o f comparison of  This  w h i c h has  difference  composite v a r i a b l e  across  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  o c c u r e d when NSs  NNS  NNS  on  (F=3.58). A p o s t  significant differences  NSthis  of  difference  Scheffe  the  the hoc  procedure, either  across  47 g r o u p s o r between t h e NS-NS mean w i t h Table  3.1  repair  a c r o s s T a s k 1 and Task 2 w h i l e T a b l e  results  shows t h e means  NS-NNS w e i g h t e d  of Scheffe  f o r t h e composite  mean.  variable of 3.2  shows t h e  test:  TABLE 3.1 REPAIR  STRATEGIES  DYADS  N  SIMPLE TASK 1  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  Group  NS-NS  Group No. Mean  COMPLEX TASK 2  Test  NS-HIGH NNS  NS-INT NNS  NS-LOW NN.  1  2  3  4  11.03  16.84  15.81  20.68  2.24  1.84  1 2  3.72*  .40  1.48  3  1 .87  1 - 2/3/4  = 3.19  2 -  =  p< .05  3/4  .63  1/2  - 3/4  = 2.35  4 - 2/3 = 1.90  1 -  3/4  =  3.21  4 - 1/2/3=  2.89  48  The was  first  of these  a significant  work a c r o s s all  two t a b l e s  (3.1) r e v e a l s  that  there  d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e amount o f n e g o t i a t i o n  both tasks.  A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e mean s c o r e s f o r  g r o u p s on t h e c o m p o s i t e v a r i a b l e o f r e p a i r showed  significantly the  more n e g o t i a t i o n  more complex d r a w i n g t a s k  picture  recognition  strategies  task  i n T-units  (task  that  work was needed t o c o m p l e t e (task  2) t h a n t h e  simpler  1 ) . The mean number  f o r a l l groups across 1 and 20.14  of r e p a i r  both tasks  (SD 6.43) on t a s k  was  12.04  (SD 4.85) on t a s k  2.  Table  3.3 below shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e ANOVA t e s t f o r t h i s  variable: TABLE  3.3  REPAIR: A n a l y s i s Effect  SS  df  of  Variance  MS  F  P  4.6  *< .05  A  378.85  3  126.28  Error 1  322.94  1 2  26.91  B  523.91  1  523.91  24.6  1 4.09  3  4.70  .2  255.55  1 2  21 .30  A X B Error  Similar  2  r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d  ***<.001 ns  f o r 17 o f t h e 28 d e p e n d e n t  v a r i a b l e s w h i c h 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 . other that  words, t h e s e c o n d m a j o r h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h a higher  repair  >.05  frequency of reduction,  In  predicted  c o m m u n i c a t i o n and  s t r a t e g i e s would be u s e d on t h e more complex t a s k  partially  supported. For the 4 input  v a r i a b l e s , both the  was  49 rate  of  speech  significantly differences of  the  type  two  ratio  across both  of the f o r the  t a s k s used  higher than  study.  variables strategies  differences  of t o p i c and  for  a l l groups f o r the  and  4.3  and  the  the  t h e more complex  In a d d i t i o n  4.1  to the  the  above  found  f o r the  composite  interlanguage  below shows t h e mean s c o r e s  4 input v a r i a b l e s while Tables  3 composite  of  of input across t a s k s ,  strategies,  Table  complexity  show t h e mean s c o r e s f o r t h e t o p i c  strategies  because  which c o n t r a d i c t e d the  were a l s o  encoding  repair.  these  simpler p i c t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n task  d i f f e r e n c e s measuring the complexity significant  of  t h e o t h e r hand,  r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i v e  in this  first  to  p r e d i c t e d to occur  t a s k . On  (task 2), a r e s u l t  hypothesis  r a t i o were f o u n d t a s k s . The  was  2nd  significantly  task  original  token  ( r a t e of speech)  1) was  drawing  the type  differ  complexity  token  (task  and  4.2  encoding  v a r i a b l e s w h i c h measured  interactional modifications: TABLE  4.1  FORMAL REDUCTION STRATEGIES  Independent Var.  Task 1  Task 2  F  1) W o r d s / T - U n i t  3.12  (SD  .40)  3.25  (SD  .72)  .39  ns  2)  1.58  (SD  .24)  1.65  (SD  .16)  .65  ns  24.87) 24.12  **  T-units/Turn  3) Wds/Minute  160.44  (SD  4) T y p e t o k e n  .52  (SD  **  *** p  < .01  p  <  .001  41.71) 120.39 .08)  .46  (SD (SD  .04)  9.27  **  50  TABLE INTERACTIONAL  4.2 MODIFICATIONS  Topic Encoding S t r a t e g i e s  Independent V a r .  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) Q u e s t i o n s  13.79  (SD  4.25 )  20 .44  (SD 5.75)  19.27  .44  (SD  .61)  2.76  (SD 2.46)  9.97  c) I m p e r a t i v e s  **  *** p  < .01  p < .001 TABLE Composite  4.3 Variables  Independent V a r .  Task  1  2) I n t e r l a n g u a g e 16.87  (SD  5.50)  28.51  3) I n t r a l a n g u a g e  2.36  (SD  3.37)  3.2  (SD 3.39)  12.04  (SD  4.85)  20.13  (SD 6.43)  4) R e p a i r  **  Task 2  F  (SD 6 .42 ) 44 .38 .36 ns 24.60  *** p  < .01  The  p < .001  third  a significant not  major  h y p o t h e s i s which p r e d i c t e d  interaction  between t a s k and p r o f i c i e n c y  s u p p o r t e d . Out t h e 32 d e p e n d e n t  variables total  self  of s e l f  repetition  repetition  t h e r e would  across  (F=2.98),  (F=2.79) and words p e r m i n u t e  variables,  only  speaker turns  comprehension  be  was  the four  (F=3.00),  checks  (2.67) showed a t r e n d  towards  51 an  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . The  b e t w e e n t h e s e two from  the  independent v a r i a b l e s  relatively  increasing  the  nonsignificant  small  amount o f  cell the  between g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s chances of  finding a  observation  could  consistent  differences  also  more r o b u s t  large  of  made r e g a r d i n g  the  small  on  cell  i n order  similar  the  lack  the  first  to  was  pointed  significant  out  r e s u l t of  amount o f  particular,  For  topic  Individual  i n the  were f o u n d  the  significantly  across  the  chances on  section,  a  of  the  the  the  first  This  strategies and  tasks  found  in  In  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  strategies 1.  most  difference  work a c r o s s b o t h t a s k s .  task  questions, declaratives  for  Variables  t h i s s t u d y was  repair  encoding  that  (n=16) s u g g e s t s t h a t  previous  a l l 4 g r o u p s used  complex t a s k ) t h a n on  of  proficiency.  negotiation  i n t e r l a n g u a g e and  factor  be  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  Summary o f R e s u l t s  of  significant results.  s a m p l i n g would have i n c r e a s e d  of  the  sizes required  to y i e l d  task complexity  independent v a r i a b l e  level  thereby  consequently reducing  significant differences  second v a r i a b l e  the  be  resulted  t e r m when c a l c u l a t i n g  between g r o u p s would have had  f a c t that  As  and  have  significant interaction. A  Once a g a i n ,  extraordinarily  finding  error  may  (n=4),  between g r o u p s d i f f e r e n c e s  proficiency.  The  sizes  interaction  on was  task 2  (the  more  reflected in  where the  frequency  sentence of  imperatives d i f f e r e d 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 all  attributed  r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s were e n c o d e d as  of requests  for clarification,  clarification elicit  verification  (definition  request). This  across four  tasks  of  task  t o ask  twice  by  task  two  latter  be  carried  Independent  out.  4 .21 )  Confirmation  Check 1 .89  (SD  Comprehension  Check 1 .19  Verification Lexical  Uncertainty Requests  Because of the comprehension  unknown word  As  was  comparisons  Table  5.1  shows,  significantly  Task 2  (SD  the  to  more  Strategies  R e q s . 8 .78  Differences  designed  5.1  Clarification  influenced  NNSs so  Task 1  p .<  form  1.  Repair  < .o5  i n the  s t r a t e g y , however,  intermediate  TABLE  p  almost  and  questions  r e p a i r s t r a t e g i e s were used  2 than  Definition  questions  a s p e a k e r t o d e f i n e an  c o u l d not  these  that  o f meaning, t o i n d i c a t e l e x i c a l  or  used o n l y  fact  comprehension  checks or r h e t o r i c a l  uncertainty  on  to the  1 1.69  (SD  4 .78 )  1 .24)  4 .11  (SD  1 .32 ) 18 .61  (SD  1 • 41 )  2 .49  (SD  2 .82 )  7 .09  .03  (SD  .13)  .44  (SD  .69)  4 .36  .08  (SD  .18)  1 .09  (SD  1 .77)  5 .86  .00  (SD  .00 )  .49  (SD  .17)  amount o f r e p a i r a c r o s s  tasks  .01  i n the  F  p  frequency  <  ***  ns  * ns  .001  of q u e s t i o n  g r e a t e r number o f c h e c k s on  *  7 .97  forms s p e a k e r s  confirmation  t h e more complex t a s k ,  also used.  and t h e r e was  a  53 corresponding  d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e number o f p h o n o l o g i c a l l y  marked q u e s t i o n s of other across  ( Q u e s t i o n B) i n t a s k  question  tasks or proficiency  the F values  frequency  f o r m s , however, d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  means f o r t h e s i x d i f f e r e n t and  1 and 2. The  levels.  Table  5.2 shows t h e  q u e s t i o n forms i n t a s k  f r o m t h e ANOVA  tests  vary  f o r these  1 and 2  variables:  TABLE 5.2 Question Independent  Forms  Task 1  Task  Question  A  (ka)  2.92  (SD  1 .91 )  Question  B  (phon)  8.95  (SD  4.27)  Question  C (kana)  .26  (SD  .43)  Question  D (WH)  .84  (SD  .77)  Question  E  (nan)  .18  (SD  .29)  Question  F  (nani)  .58 (SD  .67 )  3 .92  (SD  1 3.47 (SD  2  F  3 .12)  4 .16) 1 3.19  .58 (SD  a l s o made t h e i r  significantly the  2 .63 ns  1 .23 )  2 .63 ns  .40 (SD  .57)  1 .57 ns  .43 (SD  .92 )  1 .39  (SD  t u r n s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y Similarly, and  both  strategies.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  g r e a t e r on t h i s  second  t h e r e was a l s o a g r e a t e r number o f  attempted  on t a s k 2,  w i t h i n and a c r o s s  r e s t r u c t u r i n g moves on t a s k  speakers  .32 ns  s p e e c h more r e d u n d a n t by e m p l o y i n g  more i n t e r l a n g u a g e  amount o f r e p e t i t i o n  speaker task. approximations  2 which suggests  that  t o accommodate f o r t h e l a c k o f s h a r e d  r e f e r e n c e by r e c y c l i n g  **  .62)  I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e g r e a t e r amount o f r e p a i r speakers  .97 ns  t h e i r message e i t h e r  by g l o s s i n g  54 their  original  e x p l a n a t i o n s w i t h more s i m p l i f i e d  o r by  breaking  down d i f f i c u l t  smaller u n i t s of paraphrasing,  p r o p o s i t i o n a l content  s p e e c h . The  amount o f o t h e r  however, d i d n o t  vary  2 with  for  each  the  corresponding  into  repetition  and  across tasks. Table  6.1  shows t h e mean number o f i n t e r l a n g u a g e and  vocabulary  F value  strategies  on  from t h e ANOVA  task 1 tests  variable: TABLE  6.1  Interlanguage Independent  Strategies  Task 1  Task 2  F  Self  Within  Turns  6.27  (SD  3.37)  9.19  (SD  3.41)  9.11  Self  Across  Turns  4.06  (SD  1 .62 )  9 .22  (SD  3.19)  44.32  k~k  ickk  kick  Total  Self  Rep.  10.32  (SD  3.80)  18.01  (SD  5.27)  46.71  5.30  (SD  2.64)  5.71  (SD  3.12)  .16  .87  (SD  .82)  1.53  (SD  1.09)  3.87  Other R e p e t i t i o n Paraphrases  ns ns k ~k  Approximations  .30  (SD  .34)  2.05  (SD  1.99)  12.68  Restructuring  .08  (SD  .17)  .79  (SD  1.01)  6.84  *  p  < .o5  Unlike strategies  **  p  ***  < .01  the  p  <  .001  a b o v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e use  across  t a s k s , t h e r e was  s t r a t e g y w h i c h was  used  task.  foreignizing  T h i s was  where e i t h e r  the  NSs  as  " r i g h t " or  "left"  by  of  interlanguage  intralanguage  more on  the  complex  o f J a p a n e s e o r E n g l i s h words  o r NNSs a t t e m p t e d  were a l o a n word. F o r  o n l y one  significantly  breakdown i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n  *  t o accommodate f o r a  u s i n g an E n g l i s h word as  example, d i r e c t i o n a l were o f t e n f o r e i g n i z e d  indicators using  the  if it such  Japanese s y l l a b i c second  intralanguage  u s e d on o n l y the  This  directed  of t h i s  indirectly a t t h e NNS  T h i s was c o n f i r m e d free  strategy of ' l i t e r a l  four occasions  frequency  out.  p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f " r i g h t o and " r e f t o " .  T-units  was  and t h e r e f o r e a c o m p a r i s o n o f  strategy across  t a s k s was n o t c a r r i e d  i n d i c a t e s t h a t almost a l l language s u b j e c t s was g r a m m a t i c a l l y  well  by t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e r a t i o  to total  showed t h a t a l m o s t  translation'  The  T-units  i n the data  of e r r o r  corpus which  99.84% o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s  two J a p a n e s e n a t i v e s p e a k e r s  formed.  were j u d g e d by  t o be g r a m m a t i c a l l y  well  s t r a t e g y o f code s w i t c h i n g , a l t h o u g h  used  formed. The  last  extensively  i n t h e NS-low NNS  significantly Table in  6.2  across  dyads, d i d not d i f f e r  tasks  shows t h e mean number  T-units  tests  either  on b o t h  on t h e s e  of intralanguage s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e ANOVA  three v a r i a b l e s : 6.2  Intralanguage Independent  Literal  or proficiency l e v e l s .  t a s k s and t h e F v a l u e s  TABLE  Foreignizing  Strategies  Task 1  Task 2  F  .12  (SD  .33)  .65  (SD  .70)  14.05 **  T r a n s l a t i o n .03  (SD  .14)  .10  (SD  .23)  ns  (SD 3.37)  2.52  (SD 2.98)  .10 ns  Code S w i t c h i n g  2.36  *p < .05  A d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s and results  more  f o l l o w s i n Chapter  6.  other  56 Chapter  Conclusions  How  do  research  the on  contradict question was in  FT  NSs  and  features  that  subjects  their  in this  second  and  accommodation  between  the  reduction  strategies).  adjusted  their  particular,  i n the  did  in  some  more  features  of  FT  register  FT  reported  transactions Although  vary  between  instances  of  accommodate  ways  general  Japanese  counterparts.  enough  important be  Post  group  measuring  tied hoc  between some  of  NS-NS  variation  for  four speech  finding  the  to  the  i s that  and which  NNS  Scheffe  tests  the  results  NS-NS m e a n s w i t h  the  variables indicate that when a d d r e s s i n g  when a d d r e s s i n g  lower  NNSs  level  revealed  3 of  simplification  Moreover,  this  perceived  differences for  linguistic  comparing  these  a  evident  to  NNS.  variables  for  of  previous  or  the  the  NSs  appeared  significant  means  First,  significantly  equally  of  tests  support  to  study.  proficiency  Scheffe  compare  Many o f  were  Japanese  study  results  NNS  not  there  Implications  existence  were  did  this  research? the  literature  suggest  the  supported.  NS-NNS d y a d s ,  A  do  regarding  Japanese these  and  previous  clearly the  f i n d i n g s of  &  6  the  4  (formal of  the  pooled  weighted NS-NNS  Japanese  i n general  NNSs.  1  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 Scheffe tests did result in consistently significant d i f f e r e n c e s across groups, a general trend i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n was observed. The r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e c o n d independent v a r i a b l e suggest that l a r g e r c e l l sizes ( i . e . n = 8) w o u l d m o s t l i k e l y h a v e b e t t e r t e a s e d out 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 independent v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y .  NSs and  in  57 A  similar observation  c a n be made f o r t h e amount o f  r e p a i r work a c r o s s p r o f i c i e n c y difference  was f o u n d  i n t h e f r e q u e n c y o f r e p a i r when t h e NS-  NS c o r p u s was compared the  t o t h e NS-low NNS d y a d s .  r e s u l t o f the weighted  frequency of r e p a i r groups  indicates  levels. A significant  Scheffe  f o r the frequency  strategies  reveals,  interaction frequency  The this  inspection  few s t u d i e s  of t h i s  of the learner  One  and t h e  (see B i a l y s t o k  be a more i m p o r t a n t  1984  possible  f o r t h i s r e s u l t i s that contributing  f o r t h e use o f such speech third  research  have shown a s i g n i f i c a n t  of the l i t e r a t u r e ) .  w h i c h may a c c o u n t  c o m p l e x i t y may  discourse.  l e v e l s seems t o c o n t r a d i c t  i n t h e use o f these s t r a t e g i e s  explanation  i n p r e v i o u s FT  of s i g n i f i c a n t differences  between t h e p r o f i c i e n c y  a discussion  trigger  A closer  however, t h a t  out e a r l i e r ,  o f i n t e r l a n g u a g e and i n t r a l a n g u a g e  across proficiency  previous research.  when  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which  NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n f r o m NS-NS  On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e l a c k found  replicated  and seems t o be an o v e r r i d i n g  distinguishes  for  As was p o i n t e d  f i n d i n g has been c o n s i s t e n t l y  research  t h e t h r e e NS-NNS  much more r e p a i r work o c c u r r e d  NSs were i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h NNSs. this  t e s t comparing the  i n t h e NS-NS d y a d s w i t h  that  Furthermore,  task  f a c t o r or  modifications.  major f i n d i n g of t h i s study c l e a r l y supports  conclusion.  Out o f a t o t a l  o f 32 d e p e n d e n t  measuring both  linguistic  modifications,  18 o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  variables  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 differed significantly  across  both tasks.  In p a r t i c u l a r , t h e second drawing  turned  o u t t o be a f a r more complex t a s k  task  f o r a l l subjects  to  58 c o m p l e t e . T h i s was repair  on  reflected  i n a greater  t h e d r a w i n g t a s k as w e l l as a  frequency  significantly  g r e a t e r number o f  interactional  modifications  latter  category,  significantly  more s e l f  within  and  s p e a k e r t u r n s and  across  approximations complex Two  and  this  repetition  a higher  both  frequency  measures of  linguistic  w h i c h was  significantly  type  token  tasks,  ratio  complex t a s k .  original  t h e more  slower  on  w h i c h was  r a t e of  speech  result  study  the  the  relative  however, r e v e a l s t h a t t h e g r e a t e r number o f  used  compared  to the  t a s k may  account  third  w o u l d be  the  11  for this  task  (20  which p r e d i c t e d t h a t  interaction complexity  specifically,  the  across was  not  the  two  r a t e of  speech  speaker turns  (F=  within  and  across  speaker turns  (F=2.98) and  checks  (F=  2 . 7 9 ) . The  slightly  faster  r a t e of  results speech,  3.00), s e l f  f o r the  first  Only  four  self  repetition  confirmation of  these  i n d i c a t e s t h a t NSs  r a t e when a d d r e s s i n g  there  interaction  (F=2.67),  across  the  second  f a c t o r s of  supported.  repetition  variables,  i n the  outcome.  3 2 v a r i a b l e s showed a t r e n d toward an  effect,  of  color pictures)  & w h i t e d r a w i n g s used  major h y p o t h e s i s  and  of the a c t u a l c o n t e n t  r e c o g n i t i o n task  black  significant  proficiency of  i n the  and  f o r the  contradicted  regarding  t a s k s . A review  higher  each  pictures  found  t h e more complex t a s k  significantly  latter  of t h i s  the  were a l s o  of  task,  the  specifically,  This  hypothesis  simplification  complexity  The  of  task.  across  less  . In  r e s t r u c t u r i n g moves were u s e d on  to d i f f e r  the  of  h i g h and  spoke a t a  intermediate  l e a r n e r s on For  lower  to the  both tasks  level  NS-Low NNS  the  three  other  groups  significantly ( f a c t o r 2)  t o w a r d an  in this  the  speech  was  linguistic  why  the  there  simplification  the  relative  (1982) a r g u e s t h a t  However, t h i s  s t u d y and  the  some o f  i n d i c a t e t h a t NS of  the  more r e c e n t  a  trend  target  a review of  the  r a t e of  this  speech  language are  towards f a c i l i t a t i n g suggest  issue)  i s an  that  . While  important  an  T-unit  i s a l s o a common f e a t u r e  accommodation second  (see of  Kelch  1985).  t h e s e two  surface  t o NNSs. (see i t has  the of  of  Long  been a r g u e d  1985 that  contributing factor r e s u l t s of  c h u n k i n g as measured by  and  be  classroom  e s s e n t i a l part  such comprehension, the  linguistic  number o f words p e r  of  studies  in  a l t e r a t i o n s t o the  s p e e c h more c o m p r e h e n s i b l e  for  the  was  comprehension.  w h i c h 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 i n p u t  was  with  i t is interactional  facilitate  turn,  of  i n NS-NNS i n t e r a c t i o n needs t o  w h i c h most l i k e l y  study  to  more complex  importance  modifications  m a k i n g NS  compared  combination  s p e e c h on  explains  above r e s u l t s ,  r e e x a m i n e d . Long  features  f o u n d when  interaction effect.  G i v e n the  settings,  speech,  v a r i a b l e of p r o f i c i e n c y  slower r a t e of partially  slowed t h e i r  s t u d y . The  first  NS-NS c o r p u s .  d i f f e r e n c e was  d y a d s mean r a t e o f  t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s on  task  to the  l e a r n e r s , however, NSs  p o i n t where a s i g n i f i c a n t  the  the  when compared  number o f T - u n i t s this  kind  In f a c t ,  of  the per  NS  in this  m e a s u r e s w h i c h was  this  study, i t  best  able  2. T h i s r e s u l t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a c c o u n t f o r g i v e n t h a t t h e r a t e o f s p e e c h between NSs was s l o w e r t h a n when NSs were a d d r e s s i n g h i g h and i n t e r m e d i a t e NNSs. T h i s was most n o t i c e a b l e on t h e more complex d r a w i n g t a s k .  to  60 tease  out d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p l e x i t y  proficiency  levels  When such then  (see Larsen-Freeman  simplification  interactional  in  t o as  the  suggest, not  to ensure  as  flow  as  a continuum, but  r a t h e r as a d e t o u r and  NNS  and  then  r e t u r n to the ongoing  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 interlanguage  significant across  trigger  (1985a) stereotyped  from t h e  suggests  the problem fact  f o r the v a r i a b l e s  across proficiency f o r these  i n t h e use  of  levels  same  that task complexity  frequency  FT  normal  t o p i c d e v e l o p m e n t . The  strategies  f o r a higher  to describe  i s a r e s o l u t i o n of the  d i f f e r e n c e s were found tasks  they  negotiate  meaning u n t i l  variables  their  NS  intended  the  Varonis  f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e . As  o f d i s c o u r s e where b o t h  while  to r e c y c l e  a c o m m u n i c a t i o n breakdown. I t i s t h i s  a more a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n would be  measuring  comprehension,  "pushdown s e q u e n c e s " w h i c h have been  literature  across  1983).  o f n e g o t i a t i o n work o r what Gass and  refer  input  m o d i f i c a t i o n s were employed  t h e message o r r e p a i r type  failed  of  may  be  these  strategies. The  q u e s t i o n remains, then,  more d i f f i c u l t of  these  task  than  another  interactional  complexity  has  as  such  been l a r g e l y  made i n t h e  one-way and  two-way t a s k s . Long,  Varonis  task  i s a greater  use  the n o t i o n of  e x p l a i n e d away by  literature  more n e g o t i a t i o n work t a k e s  forced  that there  m o d i f i c a t i o n s . To d a t e ,  distinction  that  t o what makes one  the  o v e r d i f f e r e n c e s between  (1981a) f o r example,  claims  p l a c e when l e a r n e r s a r e  t o e x c h a n g e i n f o r m a t i o n i n two-way t a s k s . However, as and  Gass  (1985a) r e p o r t and  as t h i s  study  also  61 indirectly the  shows t h e o p p o s i t e  absence o f shared  may be t r u e . I n o t h e r  reference  words,  on a one-way t a s k may  n e c e s s i t a t e a g r e a t e r amount o f n e g o t i a t i o n work among participants  whereas s h a r e d  common i n a two-way t a s k , misunderstanding which  speakers  both  push t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n  was f a r s i m p l e r  f o r the subjects  t h e same p h o t o g r a p h s ) .  drawing task  'pool' o f background forward  visual  clues  On t h e o t h e r  i n this  since  from t h e o u t s e t  hand, i n t h e  o n l y one s u b j e c t had t h e b a c k g r o u n d reason  information a great  more n e g o t i a t i o n work was r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u l l y  complete The that  the task. above o b s e r v a t i o n d i r e c t l y  learners at different  completing  tasks  levels  relates  t o the success  o f p r o f i c i e n c y had i n  each o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e t a s k s . While  intermediate  as  ( s e e Brown &  t o complete  w h i c h was t o be communicated and f o r t h i s deal  sense, a task i n  Thus, t h e p i c t u r e r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k  p a r t i c i p a n t s had i d e n t i c a l  (i.e.  In t h i s  c a n draw upon a common  1984: 8 1 f f ) .  study  lessens the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r  between s p e a k e r s .  knowledge h e l p s Yule  background knowledge, as i s  and advanced  reasonably  students  w e l l , lower l e v e l  s u c c e s s f u l i n completing  were a b l e  both  t o manage  both  l e a r n e r s were c l e a r l y n o t  t h e more complex d r a w i n g  task.  Many o f t h e e x c h a n g e s i n t h e NS-LOW NNS dyads were characterized resulting  i n either  t o code s w i t c h or  by f r e q u e n t  c o m m u n i c a t i o n breakdowns o f t e n  t h e J a p a n e s e NS o r t h e NNS b e i n g  t o E n g l i s h i n order  i n some c a s e s ,  both  speakers  to c a r r y the task  opted  f o r message  forced forward  62 abandonment and The  following  completing type  NS:  NNS:  ah  see.  NS  Yes,  a  Kuki  wa  : Eto  task.  l e v e l NNS  and  illustrates  directed  by  3 NS  this  t h e NS  to  there  k u k i nan  arimasu.  i s a stem. T h e r e i s a  (doesn't  o shimasu  (a stem) a k u k i  stem.  know meaning)  ka?  (a stem) what does i t do?  t s u i t e i m a s u . . . ue  attached  to the  Ok.  Kuki  (doesn't  kuki  (stem)?  Clouds?  chigaimasu.  Eto  : Kuki  ga  K a z e . Kaze? K u . . . K u k i ?  hana ga  Kuki  ha  stem.  flower,  n i . hai.  (the flower  know t h e m e a n i n g ) ,  incorrect.  kuki kara Ah  from  ha  the  i s ) on  the  kumori?  ha  t o hana  ga....  flower  kara  From t h e NS  flower  atte.  top.  : Eh  i s being  i n the  Hai.  That's NNS:  NNS  Wind. Wind? K u k i ?  Kuki.  It's  NNS:  The  k u k i ga  so k a .  A kuki NS  item  flower:  hana k a r a  I  next  t h e more complex d r a w i n g t a s k  From t h e NNS:  to the  i n t e r a c t i o n between a low  of exchange.  draw a  NS:  moved on  flower.  d e s u . Ano  do  T h e r e ' s a stem. Ah  i u kana? what c a n  I  say?  3. A l t h o u g h t h e r e were n o t 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 t h e use o f t h e s e i n t r a l a n g u a g e s t r a t e g i e s , t h e r e was c l e a r l y a h i g h e r f r e q u e n c y i n t h e use o f t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s i n t h e NS-low NNS d y a d s ( s e e A p p e n d i x C f o r a c o m p a r i s o n o f means).  63 NNS:  Hana wa.... A  NS  flower.  : Hana wa The  NNS:  hana wa  kuki n i t s u i t e  f l o w e r . . . t h e f l o w e r has  Kuki n i t s u i t e  imasu.  Un  T h e r e ' s a stem  (still  does  The  initial  trigger  last  turn,  for this  meaning, but sequence to  i t appears  in fact,  this  was  This  part  I see.  pushdown sequence  the  o f t h e word k u k i t h e NNS  n e g o t i a t i o n was  characteristic  was  o r stem.  understands  n o t t h e c a s e and turns u n t i l  o f t h e t a s k and  type of s t i l t e d ,  ka.  not understand k u k i ) .  c o n t i n u e d f o r a n o t h e r 20  abandon t h i s  object.  that  stem.  so d e s u  NNS's r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n the  a  imasu.  By  the  this  t h e NNS  chose  move on t o a n o t h e r  almost p a i n f u l  type of  o f a l m o s t a l l t h e low NS-NNS  exchanges. The  above example r a i s e s  q u e s t i o n o f how implemented level  such  i n f o r m a t i o n gap  i n a second  of p r o f i c i e n c y  the important pedagogical  language  t a s k s can  curriculum  can l e a r n e r s  be  be  and a t what  expected to p r o f i t  advocates of a  from  such a c t i v i t i e s .  While  curriculum  might  s u g g e s t t h e use o f s u c h t a s k s even a t an  elementary  level,  i t would  appear  some o f t h e b a s i c m e c h a n i c s vocabulary Aston the  to p r o f i t  input  studies,  significantly  argues  that  l e a r n e r s must have  of s e n t e n c e l e v e l  from engaging  ( 1 9 8 6 ) , f o r example,  communicative  i n such  i n a recent that  and  activities.  critical  the u t i l i t y  diminished i f a l l that  grammar  review of  of such t a s k s i s  transpires  i s such  repetitive such  r e p a i r work.  The r e s u l t s  a criticism at least  level  learners being  beyond An  their  ancillary  researchers results  finding  should  study  support  i n s o f a r a s i t a p p l i e s t o low  asked  grammatical  of this  t o complete t a s k s which a r e w e l l  competence. of t h i s  study  be more c a u t i o u s  suggests  that  i n g e n e r a l i z i n g the  o f FT r e s e a r c h on t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e t o o t h e r  languages.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  been w i d e l y  used  t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s t h a t have  i n E n g l i s h FT r e s e a r c h may be d i s c o u r s e  d e p e n d e n t , t h a t i s , t h e y may be a r t i f a c t s o f t h e d i s c o u r s e structure  o f t h e E n g l i s h language  discussion English  than  a higher than the  issue).  F o r example, i n much o f t h e  l a n g u a g e FT r e s e a r c h , t h e f r e q u e n c y  repetition less  of t h i s  ( s e e A n d e r s o n 1984 f o r a  i n NS-NS t a l k  has been shown t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n NS-NNS t a l k . frequency  In t h i s  study,  of s e l f r e p e t i t i o n  i n t h e NS-NNS d y a d s . T h i s f i n d i n g high  frequency  i n this  finding  area  (Hinds  examining the r e l a t i v e overlap  signals  however, t h e r e was  i n t h e NS-NS dyads seems odd, b u t g i v e n  o f back c h a n n e l l i n g and r e d u n d a n c y i n  spoken Japanese t h i s research  of s e l f  i s c o n s i s t e n t with  earlier  1 9 8 2 ) . F o r example, i n a s t u d y  frequency  o f such  backchannel  i n J a p a n e s e and E n g l i s h , K a n a t a n i  and  and C l a r k  (1981) r e p o r t t h a t t h e r e was 20% more b a c k c h a n n e l l i n g i n Japanese than Americans setting.  i n E n g l i s h among b i l i n g u a l  conversing The r e a s o n s  amount o f r e d u n d a n c y different  social  on i d e n t i c a l cited  J a p a n e s e and  topics i n a laboratory  t o account  f o rthis  greater  i n t h e Japanese language r e v o l v e around  factors,  t h e most p r o m i n e n t b e i n g t h e  65 conscious a  formal  show o f ' f a c e ' r e g i s t e r (keigo)  A second problem deal  could  discourse it  could  analyzed task  result  elicited  and data  a very  controlled, of  the task  features  that are  For this  profile  phenomena should  changing with the  o f the speaker.  Data  s e t t i n g s may r e s u l t i n  of the learners  interlanguage  or i n  a N S s p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o use a 1  opens a P a n d o r a ' s Box, however,  laboratory  conditions  i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t being  quotes Labov, i t i s a c l a s s i c  where v a r i a b l e s c a n be to generalize  outside  s t u d i e d . Thus, as T a r o n e  example o f t h e O b s e r v e r s  P a r a d o x where e i t h e r t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o be s t u d i e d  reason,  o r even NNS-NNS t a l k  from n a t u r a l i s t i c  study,  from  i n a c o n t r o l l e d e x p e r i m e n t such as  t h e immediate p o p u l a t i o n  object  subjects.  type of r e s e a r c h ,  interlanguage  requires  r e g i s t e r . This  because without  from  similar studies  i n this  continuum c o n s t a n t l y  taken  case of t h i s  that  i n NS-NNS t a l k  subjects  different  simplified  data  of the instrument  (i.e. self-repetition).  focus from  t o the actual  n a r r a t i v e types of  the discourse  (1983) h a s s u g g e s t e d  different  the  that  seen as a f l u i d  this  In d i r e c t i v e  a good  n o t from speaker v a r i a b l e s , b u t r a t h e r  such as a r e found be  artifacts  w h i c h a r e commonly u s e d  variables  Tarone  for e l i c i t i n g  as b e i n g  data.  be a r g u e d  pertains  s t u d y and many o t h e r  be c r i t i c i z e d to elicit  used  talk.  w h i c h has r e c e i v e d  o f a t t e n t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e  r e s u l t s of t h i s  used  even i n everyday  i n FT r e s e a r c h  methods and m a t e r i a l s The  i n J a p a n e s e s o c i e t y and t h e u s e o f  or forgoes  this  weaves a web a r o u n d t h e to record  natural  66  spontaneous need  interactions.  I n L2  f o r more n a t u r a l i s t i c  more c l i n i c a l  approach  studies  W e l l s , 1981 A final  on L1  in  Krashen  this  s t u d y does  d a t a by w h i c h  p r o g r e s s and version  such r e s e a r c h  of  which  r e s e a r c h on L1  1981).  A u s e f u l way  by Chaudron  learner  actually  be  raw  to conceptualize 165)  input,  chance  to test  until  o u t t h e newly  (see W e l l s ,  this difference  and more  hears  input  acquired  to modify h i s i n i t i a l  i s made  ( i n p u t ) and what t h e I t may  forms  well  not  in a  (1985) has  t h e o r y by a d d i n g what  the output h y p o t h e s i s which accounts f o r t h i s  the r o l e  has  recently  (intake).  c o n t e x t . R e c e n t l y , Krashen  these theories,  role  s u c h a t i m e as t h e l e a r n e r has a  i n t a k e phenomena. Whether one of  can  r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e f r e q u e n c y , does  in acquisition  calls  learners  . A weaker  (1985) where a d i s t i n c t i o n  does w i t h t h i s  result  attempted  the  the language  acquisition  between what t h e l e a r n e r a c t u a l l y  communicative  reveals  language development  s u g g e s t e d by C o r d e r ( 1 9 6 7 :  that  learning.  seems t o be much more i n l i n e w i t h  current  discussed  research  argument p l a c e s e q u a l i m p o r t a n c e on t h e  interaction  been  directly  i n providing  hypotheses about  thereby f a c i l i t a t e  of t h i s  not  o f an L2 model o f l a n g u a g e  (1985) a r g u e s t h a t  raw  as  environment  i m p o r t a n c e o f FT  importance of comprehensible input with  a  the  ( see C a r p e n t e r 1983  in a naturalistic  t o the r e l a t i v e  the construction  is clearly  methodology).  q u e s t i o n which  address pertains  there  i n order to v e r i f y  taken to date  an example o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and  research,  he  input-  a d o p t s t h e s t r o n g o r weak f o r m  of i n t e r a c t i o n  plus  modified  67 input  seems t o be a t t h e h e a r t o f s u c c e s s f u l  learning The  second  1985).  ( s e e Long  above o b s e r v a t i o n o b v i o u s l y  consequences  has i m p o r t a n t  f o r classroom p r a c t i c e . F i r s t ,  language  c u r r i c u l u m s need  learners  i n s t r u c t i o n which  level  of p r o f i c i e n c y .  g i v e n more o p p o r t u n i t i e s in  although  to actually  classroom.  Finally,  t o meaning r a t h e r  real  n o t mean  s c e n a r i o s which  greater attention  than p u r e l y  linguistic  form w h i c h  u n d e r l y i n g many o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y  to their  approaches t o  teaching.  this  s t u d y . The t e a c h i n g o f J a p a n e s e  observation relates  directly  t o the importance  and o t h e r so c a l l e d  l a n g u a g e s " c o n t i n u e s t o be c o n d u c t e d w i t h 30 y e a r  t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e  Even  tied  entails  these are the t h e o r e t i c a l  final  old  both i n North America  and J a p a n .  more p r o b l e m a t i c , i s t h o s e who a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  training  t e a c h e r s of the language  uninterested teaching spawned in  In s h o r t ,  This  "exotic  mimic,  s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d  and n e e d s .  of  language  language use o u t s i d e the  interests  language  to the  memorizing  l e a r n e r s w i t h c o n t e n t more c l o s e l y  second  tied  use t h e t a r g e t  providing  principles  based  S e c o n d l y , l e a r n e r s must be  constructing  imperfectly,  that  to provide  of l i s t e n i n g  i s more c l o s e l y  m e a n i n g f u l c o n t e x t s . T h i s does  phrases, but r a t h e r  i t suggests  t o be s t r u c t u r e d  l e a r n e r s w i t h a much g r e a t e r q u a n t i t y instruction,  language  i n learning  a second s u c h new  about a l t e r n a t e approaches t o  language  o r even  approaches. This  course materials  seem t o be g e n e r a l l y  i n t h e r e s e a r c h w h i c h has i s most c l e a r l y  used f o r t e a c h i n g  the Japanese  reflected language.  68 For on  t h e most p a r t , the  groan time  language audio  that  they are p r i m a r i l y  (often outdated)  l i n g u a l mim  the  practices  individuals and  other  us w i t h  practices  l e a r n a l a n g u a g e ? The  such  filled  phenomena i n s e c o n d  the classroom.  seen  an  initial  a r e now  know a b o u t r e s e a r c h on  can measure how  largely  unexplored.  Do  how foreigner  our  talk  classroom  learners  t h i s study  t o p r o v i d e d a t a on  l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , an a r e a w h i c h i s s t i l l part  i n use.  language r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e  In t h i s s e n s e ,  attempt  most  teachers begin to question  m i r r o r the type of i n t e r a c t i o n s  outside  and  books. I t i s h i g h  l a n g u a g e and  that  c o n f o r m t o what we  a window by w h i c h we  practices  as  drill  t r a i n e r s of these  some o f t h e c l a s s r o o m  treatises  o r worse, p u r e g r u n t  teachers of the Japanese  importantly  these  mem  linguistic  encounter  should  be  Japanese f o r t h e most  69 BIBLIOGRAPHY  A n d e r s o n , R o g e r . 1984. perspective.  Aston,  Guy.  7,  Avery,  cross-linguistic  Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.  1986.  learners:  Second l a n g u a g e s : a  Trouble-shooting  the  more t h e  i n i n t e r a c t i o n with  merrier?  Applied  Linguistics,  128-143.  Peter,  Susan E h r l i c h  and  Carlos  A.  Yorio.  Prosodic  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 .  G a s s and  Carolyn  Beebe, L e s l i e ,  M.  Madden  and  accommodation  Sociology  B e v a n , W.C.,  of  Howard G i l e s .  J.A.  abstractness  Bialystok,  of  Ellen.  1984.  Speech-  performance.  1971.  1984. In  A.  Free r e c a l l  Science  172:  the  Kasper  and  597-599.  Some f a c t o r s i n the  of communication  Gabriele  .  Interlanguage.  stimuli.  of  second  5-32.  Steger.  1983.  implementation F a e r c h and  Susan  t h e o r i e s : a d i s c u s s i o n i n terms o f  Language 46:  and  In  (Eds.).  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  and  1985.  s e l e c t i o n and  s t r a t e g i e s . In  Claus  (Eds.).  Strategies  i n interlanguage  D a v i e s and  C.  Cripper  Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y  learning  (Eds.), Press.  70 Brown, G.  and  G.  Y u l e . 1983.  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  Carpenter,  Cristin.  office Judd  hour  Discourse analysis.  Press.  1983.  "Foreigner talk"  appointments.  (Eds.),  Cambridge:  In N e s s a  Sociolinquisties  and  in university  Wolfson language  and  Elliot  acquisition.  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.  Chaudron, aid  Craig.  1983.  to l e a r n i n g ?  Long  Foreigner talk  In H e r b e r t W.  A method f o r e x a m i n i n g  input/intake d i s t i n c t i o n . Madden  Crookes,  H.  G.  1986.  Classroom  Research  Task  classification:  Centered Research,  and N.  Luppescu.  University  Ann  1984.  nonnative discourse.  Doughty, C a t h e r i n e , and t a s k s : do Paper  Gass and C a r o l y n  a  review. T e c h n i c a l Report  Institute,  R i c h a r d , R. Stuart  In Susan  the  (Eds.).  disciplinary  Day,  S e l i n g e r and M i c h a e l  (Eds.). . 1 985.  for  i n the c l a s s r o o m - an  cross#4,  Social  Science  o f H a w a i i a t Manoa.  Chenoweth, Ann Corrective  E. Chun  feedback  Language L e a r n i n g 34  Teresa Pica.  they f a c i l i t a t e  Center  second  1984.  and  in native(2):19-45.  I n f o r m a t i o n gap  language  acquisition?  p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 18th a n n u a l TESOL C o n f e r e n c e ,  Houston,  Texas,  March  6-11.  71  Duff,  P.A.  to  Another  task.  look at interlanguage  In R i c h a r d R.  Day  talk:  taking  (Ed.), Talking to  task  Learn.  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House  D u l a y H.,  M.  Oxford:  Freed,  B.  B u r t and Oxford  1980.  children: and  R.  similarities  Scarcella  second  communicative language.  1982.  Language  two.  University Press.  and  d i f f e r e n c e s . In S.  (Eds.), Research  i n Second  to Krashen  Language  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.  S t e p h e n , J . 1977.  formal  Krashen.  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  Acquisition.  Gaies,  S.  The  nature  of l i n g u i s t i c  language l e a r n i n g : l i n g u i s t i c strategies  I n H.D.  204-212 T e a c h i n g  i n ESL  Brown, C. and  teachers  Y o r i o & R.  Learning  1  input i n  and  classroom  Crymes  (Eds.),  E n g l i s h as a Second  L a n g u a g e : T r e n d s i n R e s e a r c h and  Practice.  Washington:  TESOL.  Faerch,  Claus  and  Interlanguage  Faerch,  Claus,  Learner  G a b r i e l e Kasper.  Strategies in  C o m m u n i c a t i o n. London: Longman.  K i r s t e n H a a s t r u p and  Language and  Multilingual  1983.  Matters.  Robert  Language L e a r n i n g .  Phillipson. Clevedon,  1984. Avon:  72 F e r g u s o n , C.A.  1971.  simplicity: foreigner  Absence o f c o p u l a  A study  talk,  Creolization  and  of normal  speech  C.,  U.  the n o t i o n  , baby  o f L a n g u a g e s , D.Hymes ( E d . ) ,  Bellugi  of V e r b a l  talk,  and  R.  Brown. 1963.  Learning  and  141-150.  Press.  Control  grammar i n i m i t a t i o n , c o m p r e h e n s i o n , and Journal  of  p i d g i n s . In P i d g i n i z a t i o n and  C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  Fraser,  and  Verbal  of  production.  Behaviour  2,  121-  1 35.  Gardiner, and  J.M.  and  uneventful  M.J.  Watkins.  1979.  word p r e s e n t a t i o n s .  Psychonomic  Society  13:  G a s s , Susan and  Carolyn  Madden. 1985.  Remembering  eventful  Bulletin  the  of  108-110.  I n p u t and  Second  Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House  G a s s , Susan and  Evangeline  Marios Varonis.  o f meaning i n n o n - n a t i v e conversation.  1985.  speaker-non-native  In Susan Gass and  Carolyn  native  speakers.  Hall,  speaker speech m o d i f i c a t i o n to Studies  J o h n , F.  i n second  1982.  Boston: A l l y n  and  An  Bacon,  Inc.  (Eds.).  Variation  non-native  language a c q u i s i t i o n  invitation  speaker  Madden  . 1 986. in  Negotiation  7:37-58  t o l e a r n i n g and  memory.  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.  Foreigner  International  H i n d s , J . 1982. 57,  Review  Japanese  i n the  of Applied  classroom.  Linguistics  conversational  17:  159-167.  structures.  Lingua,  301-326.  Huitema,  B.  1980.  The a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e  alternatives.  Kanatani,  K.  and  discussion.  Kelch,  talk  New  C.  input  i n Second  Krashen, Stephen.  1981.  New  & Sons.  Turn-taking 21,  as an a i d t o  The  i n small  comprehension.  input hypothesis:  81-90.  issues  and  Y o r k : Longman.  Paul,  A. and  Susan J . B r i s o n .  1984.  pictures,  words,  and  representations.  Journal  of V e r b a l  group  12-23.  Language A c q u i s i t i o n , 7,  1985.  implications.  Kolers,  Clarke.  Language L a b o r a t o r y  K. M o d i f i e d  Studies  York: John Wiley  and  their  Learning  mental and  Verbal  Commentary:  Behavior  23:  On  105-  113.  Larsen-Freeman, proficiency. (Eds.).  D.  1983.  Assessing  In H e r b e r t  W.  g l o b a l second  language  S e l i n g e r and M i c h a e l  H.  Long  74  L o n g , M.H.  1981a. I n p u t ,  interaction  and  acquisition.  In N a t i v e Language and  Acquisition,  H.  of  t h e New  W i n i t z , (Ed.),  York  Language L e a r n i n g 31,  F o r e i g n Language  259-278. New  i n foreigner  1:  Linguistic  talk  5  and ' c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  input. Applied  the n e g o t i a t i o n  Linguistics  1984b. The  theory.  talk  towards  (Eds.),  second  forms  language  and  I n H e r b e r t W.  a t Manoa.  language  C a r o l y n Madden  Charlene J . Sato.  268-286  comprehensible  ( 2 ) : 126-141  of Hawaii  I n p u t and  discourse:  questions.  4  of  speaker  t a s k - b a s e d language t e a c h i n g .  In Susan Gass and  and  Language  d e s i g n of c l a s s r o o m second  University  1985.  adjustments  (2 ) : 1 77-1 93.  c o n v e r s a t i o n and  Manuscript,  Annals  135-157.  1984a. N a t i v e s p e a k e r / n o n - n a t i v e  acquisition:  York:  discourse.  t o n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s . S t u d i e s i n Second Acquisition  language  Academy o f S c i e n c e .  1981b. Q u e s t i o n s  1983.  second  1983.  acquisition (Eds.).  Classroom  foreigner  f u n c t i o n s of t e a c h e r s ' s Seliger  and M i c h a e l H.  Long  75 and  Patricia  A. P o r t e r .  i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k and Revised version  Tahereh.  proficiency.  acquisition.  o f a p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 18th a n n u a l  1985.  Applied  P e r k i n s K. and R.  Group work,  second language  TESOL C o n v e n t i o n , Houston,  Paribakht,  1984.  Leahy.  T e x a s , March 6-11,  Strategic  competence and  Linguistics  1977.  6,  Department  Three d i f f e r e n t  statistical  of L i n g u i s t i c s ,  writing  Occasional  P a p e r s on  Linguistics  Carbondale:- S o u t h e r n  University  at Carbondale,  306-317.  Pica,  T e r e s a , and  interaction  C a t h e r i n e Doughty. 1985.  i n the communicative  comparison  of t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d  Susan  and C a r o l y n Madden  Porter, of  Gass  Patricia adult  A.  learners  proficiency  levels  dissertation.  S a i n t - J a c q u e s , B., social  1983.  language  (2):132-146.  a n a l y s e s o f o b j e c t i v e measures o f a t t a i n e d proficiency.  1984.  Illinois  I n p u t and  language  classroom: a  and group a c t i v i t i e s . (Eds.).  Variations  i n the  conversations  o f E n g l i s h as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e of the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Palo Alto:  S. R o s s ,  Stanford  and  University.  I . S h o r t r e e d . 1984.  psychology of l e a r n i n g speaker a t t i t u d e s  PhD  J a p a n e s e : an  investigation  native  of  Japanese. P r o p o s a l f o r Japan F o u n d a t i o n Research Tokyo.  toward  The  of  Awards.  In  non-native speakers  76 Scarcella, in  R. a n d C. H i g a .  second  l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n S.D. K r a s h e n , R.  Scarcella,  a n d M.H. Long  Differences  Herbert  oriented  W. and M i c h a e l i n second  Rowley, Mass.: Newbury  S h a v e l s o n , R,J.  Skoutarides,  1981.  Child-Adult  A. 1981.  T a r o n e , E . 1980.  H. Long. 1983.  Classroom  language a c q u i s i t i o n .  House.  Statistical  sciences.  Nihongo Kyoiku  and  175-201.  House.  research  behavioral  (Eds),  i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley,  Mass.: Newbury  Selinger,  1982. I n p u t a n d age d i f f e r e n c e s  reasoning  for the  B o s t o n : A l l y n and Bacon, I n c .  Nihongo n i o k e r u f o r e i g n e r  talk.  45:53-62.  Communication  repair i n interlanguage.  strategies, foreigner Language L e a r n i n g  talk  30 ( 2 ) :  417-431. 1983.  Some t h o u g h t s on t h e n o t i o n o f  'communication  strategy'.  Kasper  61-74.  (Eds.), 1983.  On t h e v a r i a b i l i t y  systems. A p p l i e d  Varonis,  In Claus  F a e r c h and G a b r i e l e  of interlanguage  L i n g u i s t i c s 4 (2):142-163.  E . a n d S. G a s s . 1982. The c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y  native  speech. Studies  (2):114-136.  i n second  o f non-  language a c q u i s i t i o n 4  77  . conversations: Applied  Wells,  1 984.  Non-native/non-native  a model f o r t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f meaning.  L i n g u i s t i c s 6 (1) ( p g s . ? ) .  G o r d o n . 1981. L e a r n i n g  through i n t e r a c t i o n .  C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y - P r e s s .  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, Lingua  current  55:41-52.  and d i s p l a c e d e n t i t y  reference.  78  APPENDIX 'A  1  79 PLACEMENT  TEST  (JPN)  Part I. A. F i l l i n t h e ( ) 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 t h e p a r t w i t h a s u i t a b l e f o r m o f a v e r b o r a d j e c t i v e , and complete the sentence. ,1.  Ashita tesuto (Probably  2.  Ano m i s e ( 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 k y o o g a k k o o (/\ ) c i <•) ^ ( P r o b a b l y S u z u k i w i l l n ^ t come t o s c h o o l  k.  Y u u b i n k y o k u ( IT ) a m a r i Y^i C arimasen. (The p o s t o f f i c e i s n o t so f a r away.) T a k u s h i i (Z" ) O kudasai. St^'c. -cj-Q ( P l e a s e go by t a x i . I t i s not near.)  5. 6.  ('ta ) ^ g there w i l l v  Totemo ^ ^ " 1 3 ' L> f^' ^"TL.  deshoo. be a t e s t t o m o r r o w . )  desu.  ( I t was v e r y d i f f i c u l t . • ata l l . ) 7.  deshoo. today.)  Dakara chittorao  So I d i d n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i t  T: Kyoo no k a n j i no t e s u t o w a ^ - L ^ M jr<-V^ti oT7" S: S u m i m a s e n d e s h i t a .  'n d e s u .  d e s u ne .  Yuube waj^t- < ~r - C) <S" £ -V]--^? t l .  'n d e s u .  K u n i k a r a c h i c h i t o . n a n a Ra^Xf'szJ^^L^Z ' n desu. ("You d i d n ' t do v e r y w e l l o n t o d a y ' s k a n j i t e s t , did 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 m o t h e r came (up t o s e e me).) B.  Change t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s 1.  2.  according  to the i n s t r u c t i o n s .  Kuruma o k a i m a s u .  a.  I would l i k e  t o . b u y an o l d . i n e x p e n s i v e c a r .  b.  Please  buy a b e a u t i f u l  c.  Father  bought'me a c a r .  Yamada.-san wa s e n s e i  American c a r .  (Use V - t e from.)  desu.  a.  Yamada i s n o t an E n g l i s h ( l a n g u a g e )  b.  Last year,  c.  Yamada was n o t a good s t u d e n t , "t Q Q. C h 6 I*  - f ^ t r  was Yamada a t e a c h e r ,  i ^ i - * -  teacher.  or a  student?  b u t he i s a good  £ A J £ M <KV^O t r c ^ r  ^Gtc.  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 n e c e s s a r y , a n d i f n o t , put an x i n the b l a n k . 1.  mm <  wa w i l l n o t be a c c e p t e d a s a n answer.  )•*«.<••  2.  ( •-:)  3.  (  (  )  tm'-C' •)  ) ^  (  ) ^*Lfc  <  )"fta**v  ) A^t.fc.-.  w  Complete e a c h 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 t h e n e c e s s a r y change.-  i . <mm-?)  "  •  Onay I ccrae as>i,t wsek?)  . (fflust ccme tOiKiorrow).  . **  ;  3. $  • (don't m i n d ; i f i t i s c o l d ) .  & '  v  ; . .-(should I buy)  . :  . .  "  81  ($>J)  j&^ffcsl ";**,,  -» causative starting with 5&  %®?M&frbt!$: Q£l>tCo  ' 1. B3^c5A>^  ~* honorific expression  !  2. &!&£%<£>% yft%:£.Xf>t. Lfro  -*• passive sentence starting &  s  3. Xjtf-ytti'&VAfi&V. X ^ - f c ' t f l i ^ S T t .  —  4.  — change direct..quotation to indirect quotation  r?s*a%-p>bX < fc'l«f>, J i f ^ $ L / i "  5. ?t5$jj-ir£> < ^ « I'fco  6.  a. a  JlfrfrlZiSZ ' * y t  v  to O C  ~* humble expression  say every time a happens b takes place  b. M^&&rZft<  7. 2 - t  0  change  ^C^tiTLS  8. H $ ? f t | ^ ^ ^ ^ t t . :  ~  Lfco  -* sentence starting'with  use .V-oo form  82  "  4> & L < £ft£  (do not correct KS)  fc?  Cto< *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 difficult 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* ( •  •m  ) o  <  -  ) .  (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 i s a stan, but he has fessiae characteristics.)  4. 1 2n&KiX'b c  (  )  $ I K S t . < ^ K 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  if (  ) > ^< 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 (  )  (It is l i k e l y to rain today.  9. ^ 5 ' ^ <  c  ( . . . - .  You'd better bring your urabrella,)  ) &"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.)  )  «-3#  P a r t  TV.  I.  84  c c © £ ® c . (f&fts/tefc & j  •oil . . . .  •;.  53*  S  ft  1  4. - T ^ ^ ' / v l ?  6.  r&o^rau-  &3&<5>/V3us)  •5t>  © •  i:-;^-(Sisfc/^^U,fc/^&,l'*^i fc)-ci^ (  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.  my  4. \£fr(D$&  — aad  translation.  2. tote L> :  4.  5.  6.  you continue the conversation referring to his recent work of  5. You say you will call him again about details.  1.  3.  You ask hire his convenient day.  6. &&">&-^  PART I S e l e c t t h e word w h i c h b e s t f i t s i n t o t h e b l a n k P l e a s e mark y o u r a n s w e r s on t h e ANSWER SHEET.  (D  ©  (a)  ttz  (b)  (c)  (a)  (b)  (0  (d)  (a)  (b)  (0  (d)  (a)  (b)  (c)  (d)  (a)  %t  ft»C  fi.ti.li  (b)  (c)  frttft  t e c  (d)  (d)  ©  (a)  (b)  (0  (d)  CD  (a)  (b)  (0  (d)  ©  (a)  (b)  (0  (d)  ©  (a)  (b)  (c)  (d)  (b)  (0  (d)  (a)  04> ft  ^ < £  tr  spaces.  PART I I S e l e c t t h e word w h i c h b e s t f i t s i n t o t h e b l a n k s p a c e s . N o t i c e t h a t n o t a l l t h e words g i v e n i n t h e 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 u s e t h e ANSWER SHEET.  CD  f i t ,  W/lSEbT^Tfrlgfr-?*:  *o  fcfcUi'>U^rt£-?T^fc  0  ®  _ l _ f ^ s  <c©£©^£  (b)  (a)  ©  fcfcU*  ®  fcfcU*.  (c) frtz.L<<D  *-ti-^tBT<  (d) 't>tzb&  (e)  ffcfc-tJ-fc  (f)  (h)  &®£A,0  (i)  irt>^  (j)  (l)  ^ y ^ f t  fa) (0)  (n)  #*l<5  W  (o) f Sift*:  (s)  T tffti*  (P) (t)  y|A  s nc  88  PART I I I L i s t e n t o t h e t a p e , t h e n w r i t e down t h e words t h a t f i t i n t o t h e b l a n k s p a c e s i n ROMANJI. P l e a s e use t h e 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  Name_  PART I.  CD ©  ©  CD  ® © ®  PART II.  CD  PART III.  CD  ©  (3)  ©  ®  © © CD © © ®  ®  ®  T  S e l e c t the word which best r i t : ; i n t o the blank space::. P l e a s e 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)  (b)  (c)  (d)  (0  (a)  *o  PA K T  I.I  S e l e c t the word which best f i t s i n t o the blank space;-.. N o t i c e tht'i / not a l l the uords 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. 1  ©flii©BBaa> t>tz. Ui^Sicjfc-?-ei,--/:.  j  p i'f<35;i))<T^ttioo 7  T  @  *© F©:ka;^7><&-,T£'t  (a) b£ UA< (i) ttt'/h  :  >  __®__Biiicii?/i.  (b) fc.fcUi  (c) fcfcL©  (f) U s u i ;  (83  (J)  (W otf>T  *IJT  i> & 2 A- II  Tfc?T  (n)  lo)  (r) jgnfc  (s) tffti'  -eo  co  (d) fc>/cL£ , (W  i ' S H O  (I)  »y*fT  (P)  £ © *  (t) /hStf  >  91  APPENDIX  'B'  $  Ik  1\  1  /  : Diagram U s e d in the Experiment  1  A  9 4  APPENDIX  'C  95  ANOVA TABLES FOR A L L VARAIABLES FORMAL REDUCTION STRATEGIES WORDS PER T-UNIT EFFECT  df  MS  2.3477  3  7826  2.5776  12  21 48  .1 4 4 5 .81 38  1 3  1 445 271 3  4.4324  12  3694  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  3 .643  .0442  .391 .734  .5494 .5536  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S  3.1825 3.8500 3.3300 3.4200 2.9025 2.8175 3.0475 2.9125  .2095 1.1891 .0503 .2345 .3097 .2764 .7268 .3472  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  c s c  N  4 4 4 4  96  T-UNITS PER TURN EFFECT  SS  df  MS  A  .3948  3  .1316  12  .0120  .0371 .0282  1 3  .0371 .0094  .6892  12  .0574  Error 1  . 1 444  B A x B Error 2  TABLE OF  c=  NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  P  10.936  .001 3  .646 .164  .4422 .91 59  MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  GROUP  F  TASK  S C S C S C S C  task 1  Complex task. 2  MEAN  1.4875 1.4975 1.5175 1.5625 1.7550 1.8050 1.5700 1.7375  STDV  .2380 .0750 .1 692 .1 556 .3451 .1121 .1 645 .0634  N  4 4 4 4  97  WORDS PER MINUTE EFFECT  df  MS  13950.1000  3  4650.0200  10775.9300  12  897.9950  12830.8100 4251 .0900  1 3  12830.8100 1417.0300  6382.6000  12  531.8833  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  5.1 78  01 59  24.123 2.664  ,0006 ,0948  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  TASK S C S C S C S C  MEAN 1 44 942 4 1 31 .8000 1 95 2500 1 24,8000 1 82 9500 1 29 3000 1 1 8 6000 95 6500  STDV 48.4700 24.0671 27.1270 33.0659 1 1 .5088 12.6380 23.1073 1 1 .6475  N  98  TYPE TOKEN RATIO EFFECT  df  SS  A Error 1 B A x B Error 2  MS  ,0231  3  .0077  ,01 42  1 2  .001 2  ,0496 ,01 07  1 3  .0496 .0036  ,0642  1 2  .0054  6.51 1  0075  9.268 .667  01 00 5909  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  TASK S C S C  s  C  s c  MEAN  STDV  5950 4600 4725 4350 5225 4375 5050 4475  041 2 0356 0562 0592 081 4 0206 081 0 0538  N  4 4 4 4  99  TOPIC ENCODING STRATEGIES DECLARATIVES  EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  SS  df  233.4150  3  77.8050  287.7820  1 2  23.9818  607.7840 40.0595  1 3  607.7840 13.3532  318.2100  1 2  MS  3.244  0597  22.920 .504  0007 6900  26.5175  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD S = Simplex  DEVIATIONS  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  TASK S C S C S C S C  MEAN 88.4475 83.1100 83.6350 75.5250 85.9000 74.8000 84.1525 73.8350  STDV 5.9056 9.2046 4.4841 4.6669 3.400 2.1850 3.44 3.5059  N  4 4 4 4  QUESTIONS EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  SS  df  210.7970  3  70.2656  308.0270  1 2  25.6689  354.1130 27.6557  1 3  354.1130 9.2186  220.4650  1 2  18.3721  MS  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD  S = Simplex  2.737  .0892  19.275 .502  .0012 .6912  DEVIATIONS  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  10.7975 14.2850 14.2075 21 . 5700 13.9975 22.2575 15.3550 22.8575  5.4619 6.8853 4.5585 4.9274 3.4558 3.7646 3.5210 3.9183  NS-HIGH NNS NS-NS INT NNS NS-NS LOW  N  4 4 4 4  101  IMPERATIVES  EFFECT  df  SS .94.82  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  MS  3  40.7585  1 2  43.1288 2.5461  1 3  51.8980  1 2  .3161  093  .9579  9.972 .196  .0082 .8950  3.3965 43.1288 .8487 4.3248  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-NS HIGH NS-NS INT NS-LOW NNS  TASK S C S c s c s c  MEAN 7575 2225 ,4075 5725 ,1 025 9450 4900 3050  STDV 0892 4880 4735 51 1 0 2050 8044 3541 7532  N  4 4 4 4  QUESTION FORMS QUESTION A (ka) EFFECT  df  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  MS  13.5624  3  4.5208  58.0273  1 2  4.8356  7.9900 30.2390  1 3  7.9900 10.0797  98.7039  1 2  8.2253  4558  .971 1.225  .3458 .3433  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS -LOW  NNS  S C S C S C S C  MEAN  STDV  3.5800 1.7725 1.8225 0600 5900 8775 6825 9625  5237 9283 01 02 9587 0603 .3409 .8450 1 .8960  N  4 4 4 4  1 03  QUESTION B (Unmarked) EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  SS  df  108.8431  3  36.2811  273.0360  1 2  22.7530  163.0820 4.7596  1 3  163.0820 1.5865  148.3604  1 2  12.3634  MS  1 .595  13.191 .128  241 8  0037 ,9377  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  TASK S C S C S C  s c  MEAN 5, 5050 10, 91 50 10, 6975 14, 2925 8, 6350 13, 7675 10, 9675 1 4 8900  STDV 3, 4955 6, 1 007 4, 3846 2, 4028 4, 5484 4, 0306 3, 7793 3 ,8489  N  4 4 4 4  1 04  QUESTIONS C (kana) EFFECT  SS  A  .8871 Error 1  df  2.8027  B A x B  .851 5 .91 44  Error 2  3.8912  MS  3  .2957  1 2  .2336  1 3  .851 5 .3048  1 2  .3243  F  1 .266  .3301  2.626 .940  .1282 .4536  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  C  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  MEAN .4700 .4700 .0950 .6925 .2800 1.0050 .1875 .1700  STDV .5717 .3577 .1900 .5325 .5600 .9419 .3750 .3400  N  1 05  QUESTIONS D (WH) EFFECT  df  SS 1.3894  Error 1  3  17.5232  B A x B  2.4531 1 .4064  Error 2  MS  11.1741  .4631  1 2  1.4603  1 3  2.4531 .4688  1 2  .317  2.634 .503  ,81 37  1277 6901  .931 2  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  TASK S  c s c s c s c  MEAN ,8600 ,01 00 , 1 575 ,6700 ,5900 ,8350 ,7550 ,0625  STDV .4650 1 .4426 1.3373 1 .2832 .7388 1.5173 .4322 .8935  N  4 4 4 4  1 06  QUESTION E (nan) EFFECT  Error 1  SS  df  MS  .9052  3  .301 7  1 2  .1643  1 3  .3894 .0653  1 2  2483  1.9710  B A x B  .3894 . 1 960  Error 2  2.9797  1.837  .1936  1.568 .263  .2329 .8504  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  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  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  1 07  QUESTIONS F  EFFECT  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  (nani)  df  MS  1 .8201  3  .6067  9.3983  12  .7832  .1 639 2.0579  1 3  .1 639 .6860  6.1172  12  5098  F  .775  5324  .321 1 .346  5867 3058  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex  task 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  NS-NS  S C S C S  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  c s c  .5275 .1 225 .2200 .3125 .6025 1 .1450 . 9525 . 1 500  STDV  .6854 .2450 .4400 .6250 .6315 1 .6656 .891 5 .3000  N  4 4 4 4  INTERLANGUAGE STRATEGIES SELF REPETITION WITHIN TURNS EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  SS  df  MS  46.4005  3  15.4668  198.6640  12  16.5553  68.2988 9.2544  1 3  68.2988 3.0848  89.9617  12  7.4968  934  4561  9.110 .41 1  01 04 7502  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex task 2  GROUP NS-NS NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  TASK • S C S C S c s c  MEAN 4.8950 8.0800 5.6225 7.9725 5.8275 10.3500 8.7200 10.3500  STDV 2.7619 4.1181 2.5849 5.0606 1.5410 1 .8678 5.3549 2.1890  N  4 4 4 4  SELF REPEPITION ACROSS SPEAKER TURNS EFFECT  df  SS 9.2353  Error 1  81.4938  B A x B Error 2  MS  3  3.0784  1 2  6.7911  213.3660 43.3709  1 3  213.3660 14.4570  57.7748  1 2  4.8146  453  44.317 3.003  7225  .0001 .0721  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C. S C S C  2.6875 1 1 .6350' 4.3075 7.1950 4.3700 9.5075 4.8575 8.5425  2.2252 3. 1157 .9954 4.4175 .6688 .6093 1.7906 2.6895  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  TOTAL SELF REPETITION EFFECT  SS  A Error  1  B A x B Error  2  df  MS  42.1319  3  14.0440  377.5040  12  31.4587  473.4731 90.5865  1 3  473.4731 30.1955  121.6490  12  10.1374  F  .446  .7271  46.706 2.979  .0001 .0735  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S  7.5800 19.7150 9.9275 15.1675 10.2000 19.8625 13.5750 17.3100  3.9650 4.6712 3.4219 8.5256 1.6635 1.2713 4.1815 4.7517  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  c s c s c  N  4 4 4 4  OTHER REPETITION  EFFECT  SS  df  5.9998 Error 1 B A x B Error  2  135.8222  MS  3  F  1 .9999  1 2  p  1 77  9077  1 63 491  6941 6978  11.3185  1.3163 11.9179  1 3  1.3163 3.9726  97.0178  12  8.0848  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S  5.4150 6.4250 6.5275 5.0375 3.8900 5.7050 5.3750 5.6625  2.3446 4.6151 2.8236 1.0110 2.2654 1 .8392 3.4020 4.6620  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  c s c  N  4 4 4 4  PARAPHRASES EFFECT  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  df  MS  3.2646  3  1.0882  9.4580  1 2  .7882  3.4980 4.3435  1 3  3.4980 1 .4478  10.8451  1 2  9038  1.381  .2957  3.871 1.602  .0701 .2401  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C Sc 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  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT  NNS  NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  APPROXIMATIONS EFFECT  SS  A Error 1 B A x B Error 2  df  MS  12.2044  3  4.0681  17.1378  1 2  1.4282  24.4126 8.8242  1 3  24.4126 2.9414  23.1088  1 2  1.9257  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD  S = Simplex  P  2.849  081 5  12.677 1 .527  0041 2575  DEVIATIONS  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  NS-NS  S C S C s c s c  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT  NNS  NS-LOW NNS  MEAN .3250 1.2850 . 1 200 .6000 .2200 3.1925 .5525 3.1275  STDV .3796 .7094 .2400 .5776 . 2604 1.5552 .3984 3.1196  N  4 4 4 4  RESTRUCTURING  ss  EFFECT A Error 1 B A x B Error 2  df  MS  2.1681  3  .7227  4.9164  1 2  . 4097  4.0115 1.6379  1 3  4.0115 .5460  7.0417  1 2  .5868  F  P  1 .764  .2069  6.836 .930  .021 6 .4579  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  NS-NS  S C S C  .0000 .2525 .0950 .4500 . 1 025 . 9325 .1 1 50 1.5100  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-INT NNS  s c s c  STDV .0000 .291 8 .1 900 .6508 .2050 .3882 .2300 1 .7876  N  4 4 4 4  11 5  TOTAL INTERLANGUAGE EFFECT  A Error 1 B A x B Error 2  (COMPOSITE)  SS  df  172.7732  3  57.5911  415.4044  1 2  34.6170  1 081 .8220 170.9202  1 3  1081.8220 56.9734  313.7454  1 2  26.1454  MS  F  1 .664  41 .377 2 .179  P .2268  .0001 .1 429  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  13.7000 29.7925 17.4050 21 ,9000 15 6950 31 01 25 20. 7075 31 ,31 75  5.9849 5.5210 4.4979 8.3 674 2. 01 60 3 4771 7.4808 3.7931  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT  NNS  NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  11 6  INTRALANGUAGE  STRATEGIES  FOREIGNIZING EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error  df  MS  2.0401  3  .6800  3.9532  1 2  .3294  2.3112 .8620  1 3  2.3112 .2873  1.9744  1 2  1 645  SS  2  2.064  1 580  14.047 1.746  .0030 .2102  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  NS-NS  S C S c s c s c  .0000 .3675 .0000 .2075 .1850 1 .2625 .2800 .7775  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT  NNS  NS-LOW NNS  * Literal  Translation  - insufficient  STDV  number  .0000 . 4691 .0000 .41 50 .3700 .7567 .5600 .7486  t o r u n Anova  N  4 4 4 4  11 7  CODE SWITCHING EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B  SS  df  1 1 3 .6981  3  37.8994  158.3680  1 2  13.1973  .21 29 5.1069  Error 2  26.2914  MS  1 3  .21 29 1 .7023  1 2  2.1910  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD  S = Simplex  2.872  .0800  .097 .777  7540 531 2  DEVIATIONS  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  MEAN ,0000 0000 7850 0450 2050 5675 ,4375 4675  STDV .0000 .0000 .7834 1 .8912 3226 5292 5495 6289  N  4 4 4 4  TOTAL INTRALANGUAGE STRATEGIES EFFECT  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  df  (COMPOSITE)  MS  136.7902  3  45.5967  160.1630  1 2  13.3469  6.7712 3.7521  1 3  6.7712 1.2507  41 .8255  1 2  3.4855  F  P  3.416  .0523  1 .943 .359  ,1864 ,7855  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  .0000 .3675 .7850 2.3575 3.2050 4.8300 5.4375 5.5525  .0000 .4691 .7834 2.4657 3.3226 3.1276 4.5495 4.3469  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  11 9  REPAIR  CONFIRMATION REQUESTS EFFECT  df  SS 3.5427  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  MS  3  1 .1809  14.4576  1 2  39.2498 1.5962  1 3  39.2498 .5321  25.3094  1 2  2.1091  .980  .4361  18.610 .252  .0013 .8577  1 .2048  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex task 1 C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  1.1100 4.0125 1.7750 3.9025 2 6200 4 2725 2 0700 4, 2475  1 .0884 2.2936 1.1748 1.1455 .721 1 1 .2354 1 .2863 .6462  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT  NNS  NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  1 20  CLARIFICATION EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  REQUESTS  SS  df  234.4390  3  78.1463  261.7010  1 2  21 .8084  67.6866 9.9989  1 3  67.6866 3.3330  101.8820  1 2  8.4901  MS  3.583  .0462  7.972 .393  .01 48 . 7628  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  6.1925 7.8250 10.6725 15.3175 6.5900 9.6225 11.6700 13.9950  3.6037 3.9405 4.0908 4.9078 3.8018 3.1409 3.6255 3.7941  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  N  4 4 4 4  121  COMPREHENSION CHECKS EFFECT  df  SS  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  MS  39.8790  3  13.2930  70.5495  1 2  5.8791  13.5330 15.9931  1 3  13.5330 5.3310  22.9028  1 2  2.261  1 331  7.091 2.793  01 98 0853  1.9086  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  MEAN . 1 675 1 . 4450 . 7850 .5425 2.3775 2.9800 1.4100 4.9750  STDV .3350 1.4506 .81 75 .6407 1 .6497 2.0866 1.6889 4.2341  N  4 4 4 4  1 22  VERIFICATION OF MEANING EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  SS  df  MS  .6254  3  .2085  2.5896  1 2  .21 58  1.3530 .4731  1 3  1 .3530 .1 577  3.7209  1 2  .31 01  966  4422  4.364 .509  0564 6869  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  .0000 .0000 .0000 .5725 .1275 .5925 .0000 . 6075  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  STDV . 0000 .0000 .0000 1 . 1450 .2550 . 4725 .0000 .7101  N  4 4 4 4  1 23  LEXICAL EFFECT  df  SS  A Error 1 B A x B Error 2  UNCERTAINTY F  MS  8.2052  3  2.7351  15.9874  12  1.3323  8.0601 7.0067  1 3  8.0601 2.3356  16.4967  12  1.3747  P  2.053  . 1 596  5.863 1 .699  .0307 .2196  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS  S = Simplex  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C  .0900 .1225 .0000 .1050 . 1 275 2.1100 .1150 2.0100  . 1 800 .2450 .0000 .2100 .2550 2 .1704 .2300 2.4213  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS .  Insufficient  s c s c  number o f d e f i n i t i o n  requests to  r u n ANOVA  N  4 4 4 4  1 24  TOTAL REPAIR EFFECT  Error 1 B A x B Error 2  (COMPOSITE)  SS  df  MS  378.8474  3  126.2824  322.9440  1 2  523.9090 T4.0875  1 3  523.9090 4.6958  255.5520  1 2  21.2960  4.692  021 5  26.9120  TABLE OF MEANS AND STANDARD  S = Simplex  24.601 .221  0005 8790  DEVIATIONS  task 1  C = Complex t a s k 2  GROUP  TASK  MEAN  STDV  NS-NS  S C S C S C S C  7 5600 1 4,4925 13, 2325 20, 4375 1 1 8425 1 9 7725 1 5 5300 25 832 5  4.1539 8.9279 4.6335 3, 7779 4 4223 3 6034 3 7592 3. 6681  NS-HIGH NNS NS-INT NNS NS-LOW NNS  N  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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078298/manifest

Comment

Related Items