Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Output, input and interaction in formal/informal teacher interactions and in NS, NNS children's interactions McRae, Vicki 1987-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 M33_6.pdf [ 7.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078366.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078366-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078366-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078366-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078366-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078366-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078366-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078366-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078366.ris

Full Text

OUTPUT, INPUT AND INTERACTION I N  FORMAL/INFORMAL  TEACHER INTERACTIONS AND I N NS, NNS CHILDREN'S INTERACTIONS By Vicki  McRae  B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ,  I983  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR  MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department  of English  We a c c e p t t h i s  Education)  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H April,  1987  ( c ) V.L. McRae  COLUMBIA  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  freely available copying  of  department  publication of  in  partial  fulfilment  University of  British  Columbia,  for reference and study.  this or  thesis  thesis by  for scholarly  his  or  this thesis  her  April  1987  I agree  may  representatives.  It  be is  requirements  for  an  Education  advanced  that the Library shall make it that permission granted  for extensive  by the head  understood  that  for financial gain shall not be allowed without  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  the  I further agree  purposes  permission.  Department of E n g l i s h  of  of  my  copying  or  my written  ASTRACT O u t p u t , i n p u t and  i n t e r a c t i o n are examined i n t h i s  f o r a native E n g l i s h speaking non-native  E n g l i s h speaking  (NS,  s i t u a t i o n s i n the classroom, o r g a n i z e d . V i d e o t a p e s and  (NS)  t e a c h e r and  NNS)  child  organized one  situations,  Input  and  features  f o u r t e e n samples  to the f i r s t  fourteen  consecutive  O u t p u t was  assessed  p a r t i c i p a t i o n - u t t e r a n c e s and  i n t e r a c t i o n were a s s e s s e d  words.  both f o r discourse  ( t w e l v e n e g o t i a t i n g d e v i c e s ) and  i n terms of  the  contexts that existed during  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s - t h e i r d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e s p e a k e r and a c t i o n was reference The  assessed  two  teacher  s i t u a t i o n s and  analyzed.  s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the  and  interactions i n child  each l i m i t e d  h u n d r e d u t t e r a n c e s , were  i n terms of v e r b a l  young c h i l d r e n i n  t r a n s c r i p t s of  samples of n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g  for native  o r g a n i z e d and  of i n t e r a c t i o n s i n teacher organized  study  w i t h measures of e x o p h o r i c  and  the  anaphoric  (twenty-four reference items). 1)  results indicate:  that output  p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i e s f o r t h e t e a c h e r and children with situation, used to a s s e s s  2)  the c h i l d r e n w i t h the s i t u a t i o n a l  i n p u t , and  and  t h e NS,  NNS  that discourse features, often  i n p u t , v a r y i n t h e i r use  verbal participation,  or v e r b a l  may  by t h e t e a c h e r  and  context, increase with  n o t be  u s e f u l measures  3) t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e  that exist during teacher organized  i n t e r a c t i o n s and  of contexts child  o r g a n i z e d i n t e r a c t i o n s v a r y w i t h s i t u a t i o n - the d i s t a n c e  of  iii  the language  and  the a c t i o n from t h e s p e a k e r as w e l l  the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n . amongst i t e m s , w i t h i n and I t i s concluded that: vary with situation,  2)  Individual  across groups are 1)  noted. interaction  data analyses concerning input  occurring i n different  researchers w i l l  variations  o u t p u t , i n p u t and  i n t e r a c t i o n a r e more m e a n i n g f u l output  as  i f they are r e l a t e d to  s i t u a t i o n s , and  3)  and the  L2  b e n e f i t from moving beyond the a n a l y s i s  d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s as the s o l e p r e d i c t o r s o f i n p u t d u r i n g i n t e r a c t i o n t o examine o t h e r a s p e c t s o f the situation.  interaction  of  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT L I S T OF TABLES L I S T OF FIGURES .  i  i v v i  CHAPTER ONE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6  Introduction 1 O u t p u t t V e r b a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d L2 P r o f i c i e n c y . . . . 7 I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : Measures o f D i s c o u r s e F e a t u r e s and Measures o f S i t u a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e . . . . . . . . . . 13 I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : S t u d i e s o f D i s c o u r s e o r I n t e r a c t i o n a l Features of Conversations 21 I n p u t a n d I n t e r a c t i o n : The S i t u a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e o f Conversations 29 Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n s 4l  CHAPTER TWO A STUDY OF OUTPUT, INPUT AND INTERACTION I N FORMAL/INFORMAL TEACHER INTERACTIONS AND I N NS/NNS CHILDREN'S INTERACTIONS 2.1 2.2 2.3  Purpose and Research Questions Sample a n d D a t a C o l l e c t i o n Measures and A n a l y s e s  43 46 47  CHAPTER THREE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4  R e s u l t s : Experiment I R e s u l t s : Experiment I I Discussion Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n s  55 69 93 123  CHAPTER FOUR IMPLICATIONS 4.1 4.2  Implications f o r Education I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Research  REFERENCES  132 136 l4l  V  L I S T OF TABLES Table I Summary o f M e a s u r e s o f D i s c o u r s e / i n t e r a c t i o n a l of Conversations  Features  16  Table I I P r o f i l e of Teacher Output: A C o m p a r i s o n o f F r e q u e n c i e s o f U t t e r a n c e s a n d Words w i t h Situation  57  Table I I I A C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e T e a c h e r ' s Use o f T w e l v e D i s c o u r s e F e a t u r e s b y Rank w i t h S i t u a t i o n . . . . . . .  6l  Table IV P r o f i l e o f T e a c h e r I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : A Comparison o f F r e q u e n c i e s o f Twelve D i s c o u r s e with Situation . . . Table IV cont'd  Features .  62 .63  Table V P r o f i l e o f T e a c h e r Input and I n t e r a c t i o n : A C o m p a r i s o n o f F r e q u e n c i e s o f Two R e f e r e n c e C a t e g o r i e s with Situation  66  Table VI P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s O u t p u t : A C o m p a r i s o n o f F r e q u e n c i e s o f U t t e r a n c e s a n d Words w i t h Situation . .  71  Table V I I P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s I n p u t a n d I n t e r a c t i o n : A Comparison o f F r e q u e n c i e s o f Twelve D i s c o u r s e F e a t u r e s with Situation  74  Table V I I I C h i l d r e n ' s O v e r a l l Use o f D i s c o u r s e F e a t u r e s b y Rank Across S i t u a t i o n  75  Table IX P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s I n p u t a n d I n t e r a c t i o n : A C o m p a r i s o n o f Two C a t e g o r i e s o f R e f e r e n c e I t e m s (1 t o by P r o p o r t i o n w i t h S i t u a t i o n  24) 81  Table X P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s I n p u t a n d I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s o f E x o p h o r i c Items w i t h S i t u a t i o n . . . . . . 88 Table XI P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s I n p u t a n d I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s o f Anaphoric Items w i t h S i t u a t i o n . . . . . .92  vi L I S T OF  FIGURES  Figure 1 P r o f i l e of Teacher Output: R e l a t i v e Percentage of P a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h S i t u a t i o n  . .  56  Figure 2 P r o f i l e o f T e a c h e r I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e Percentage of T o t a l Discourse Features with Situation . . . . .  59  Figure 3 P r o f i l e o f T e a c h e r I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : P e r c e n t a g e Use o f T w e l v e D i s c o u r s e F e a t u r e s A c r o s s Situation  60  Figure 4 P r o f i l e o f T e a c h e r I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e P e r c e n t a g e s o f R e f e r e n c e I t e m s (1 t h r o u g h with Situation Figure 5 P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s O u t p u t : R e l a t i v e Percentage of P a r t i c i p a t i o n with S i t u a t i o n  24)  . .  65  70  Figure 6 P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : Relative Percentages of T o t a l Discourse Features with Situation  73  Figure 7 P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s I n p u t and I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e P e r c e n t a g e s o f Two R e f e r e n c e C a t e g o r i e s w i t h Situation  80  vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The a u t h o r Dr.  gratefully  B e r n a r d Mohani  suggestions,  special  constructive  acknowledges thanks  for  criticism,  the a s s i s t a n c e  his  of  insightful  ongoing  interest  and  is  acknowledged:  encouragement. The a s s i s t a n c e .  SCARL,  for .  Statistics  suggestions  Dr.  the  the f o l l o w i n g  Consulting  concerning  Calvin Lai,  suggestions  of  the  also  and R e s e a r c h  Lab,  research design  Computer S c i e n c e s  Centre,  concerning data processing  U.B.C,  and  analyses  U.B.C,  for  and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  of  results This  U.B.C,  Dr.  Vancouver sincere  study  was  conducted through  Glen Dixon,  School  thanks  Board.  Director, In  this  in  the  the  Study  Centre,  cooperation with  regard,  and a p p r e c i a t i o n t o  Child  the a u t h o r  expresses  following:  The O f f i c e o f S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e , D i r e c t o r a t e o f M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m , Canada  William  the  The V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d and t h e S e x s m i t h Community S c h o o l Don C u p i t , P r i n c i p a l P r i c e , Community S c h o o l C o o r d i n a t o r  The D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r e s c h o o l / E S L P r o j e c t P e r s o n n e l P a t r i c i a W a k e f i e l d , P r o j e c t Manager Dr. Glen Dixon, P r o j e c t Research C o o r d i n a t o r Judi Ritchie, Project Assistant  1  CHAPTER REVIEW OF 1.1  ONE  RELATED LITERATURE  Introduction Since  given  the  1970's  considerable  second  a t t e n t i o n to the  s t r u c t u r e s and  recently  s t u d y o f p r a g m a t i c s and  (Carrell,  Earlier  1982:479).  of second language l e a r n e r s the in  second language  concerned with in  processes  studies  different  the  learning  the  on  s t u d y o f how  input  text  cognitive contexts  classroom, with  the  study of  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  interactional  features  (see,  McLaughlin,  input  and  factors  of t a l k  1984).  with  the  w r i t t e n o u t p u t ) i n the to improve  the  and  lead L2  output  is  written)  the  the  study of  curricula.  are  various  exchanges  that research  identification  on  of (oral  language, f a c t o r s which  q u a l i t y of second language i n s t r u c t i o n  - b o t h m e t h o d o l o g y and  of  the  o f t h o s e who  learners' proficiency  second  varies  out  many d i f f e r e n c e s i n  with  by  presently  b o t h i n and  i n conversational  to  and  interaction  research  It i s generally held  interaction will  associated  verbal  motivations  i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n and  (not  in particular  ( o r a l and  and  the  has  have b e e n r e p l a c e d  (process). L2  participating  help  text  social  backgrounds,  and  i n general,  o f the  (product)  phenomenal g r o w t h i n r e s e a r c h  research  study of discourse  sentence) l e v e l to the  (L2)  language  may  2 Although there has "been t h i s phenomenal growth i n second language r e s e a r c h  on output, input  and i n t e r a c t i o n , few  s t u d i e s d i r e c t l y i n v e s t i g a t e young c h i l d r e n ' s  interactions  (ages three to seven y e a r s ) . Research i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with a d u l t s  i n " f o r e i g n " language classrooms and/or w i t h L2  students i n t h e i r l a t e r elementary and adolescent y e a r s . In a d d i t i o n , the r e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s  o f output, input and  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h young c h i l d r e n are s c a t t e r e d  and somewhat  contradictory. Discussions  o f L2 l e a r n e r ' s  output, l a r g e l y concerned  with v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h , are few and  somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  f a c t o r ( s ) are a s s o c i a t e d E n g l i s h . L2 c h i l d r e n ' s associated  I t i s not p r e s e n t l y  with i n c r e a s e d  clear  what  proficiency i n  success i n speaking E n g l i s h has been  w i t h and a t t r i b u t e d to a number and range o f  d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s . F o r some r e s e a a r c h e r s m o t i v a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s are key to success i n E n g l i s h , f o r others i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s o c i a l i z a t i o n with the t a r g e t group i s r e l a t e d to L2 success, s t i l l one's n a t i v e significant  language  others note speaking  language to the v i r t u a l e x c l u s i o n  o f E n g l i s h as  ( F i l l m o r e , 19?6>5 C h e s t e r f i e l d et a l . , 1982}  Strong, 1983; S a v i l l e - T r o i k e , 1984). S t u d i e s o f output are a l s o g e n e r a l l y  r e s t r i c t e d to  t e a c h e r organized s i t u a t i o n s , though output may vary i n d i f f e r e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s such as those organized w i t h i n the peer group (see, H a l l i d a y and Hasan,  1976).  3  The  study o f input - the f e a t u r e s o f the t a l k addressed  to L2 l e a r n e r s has grown c o n s i d e r a b l y  (Long, 1 9 8 1 : 1 3 5 ) • Most  r e s e a r c h i s concerned with a d u l t s and o l d e r c h i l d r e n and c e n t r e s on the a n a l y s i s o f those  i n t e r a c t i o n a l features of  language that are used to a c q u i r e and hold a t t e n t i o n , maintain  and/or r e p a i r c o n v e r s a t i o n and n e g o t i a t e  input  d u r i n g v a r i o u s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchanges (see, f o r example, Freed, 19811  1980j  19811 S c a r c e l l a and Higa,  1982a; 1982b> Long,  Pica, and Long, 1982; Peck, 1985). These measures are used somewhat c o n s i s t e n t l y i n that  s i m i l a r measures are deemed a p p r o p r i a t e by a number o f r e s e a r c h e r s f o r a r r i v i n g at assessments o f input and interaction  (see, part 1 . 3 ) • And, measures o f input and  i n t e r a c t i o n may prove u s e f u l f o r a r r i v i n g at c o n c l u s i o n s concerning  the r e l a t i v e importance o f v a r i o u s forms (e.g.  "yes/no" q u e s t i o n s ,  "display" questions,  e t c . ) and t h e i r  f u n c t i o n s (e.g. c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, a c q u i r e a t t e n t i o n , e t c . ) during conversation i n d i f f e r e n t  s i t u a t i o n s . However, these  measures n e i t h e r r e l a t e input to output  i n an e f f o r t t o  understand whether or not some measures are a s s o c i a t e d  with  i n c r e a s i n g v e r b a l i z a t i o n (e.g. Do L2 l e a r n e r s use "yes/no" questions,  c l a r i f i c a t i o n checks/requests,  e t c . more  f r e q u e n t l y as they become more p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h ? ) , n o r do they c o n s i d e r the contexts  of i n t e r a c t i o n  s p e c i f i c a l l y the a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f the content  situations, o f the  d i s c u s s i o n s and/or tasks to L2 l e a r n e r s (e.g. t h e i r dependence or independence).  context  4  L2 r e s e a r c h e r s a r e p r e s e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g language f o r s o c i a l generally latter for  versus  academic purposes,  the former  i d e n t i f i e d a s c o n t e x t bound o r d e p e n d e n t and t h e  i d e n t i f i e d as c o n t e x t r e d u c e d o r independent ( s e e ,  example,  Terrell,  Cummins,  1980} F i l l m o r e , 1983? K r a s h e n a n d  1983J S a v i l l e - T r o i k e ,  1984). A t p r e s e n t t h e t r e n d  i n research favours  a linear progression  learners'  t o i n f e r meaning from t e x t .  earlier  abilities  forms  o f development o r i n  dependent because situationally exchange. classroom contextual  the l e a r n e r r e l i e s  bound c u e s t h a t  exist  The a b i l i t y  i n the communicative  dependent s i t u a t i o n s  success  and p o t e n t i a l l y d i f f i c u l t  l e a r n e r does n o t have a c c e s s assumed  i n academic/formal t o be f r e e o f  independent.  t o comprehend messages i n c o n t e x t  or text  knowledge  h e a v i l y on t h e  communication i s s a i d  cues o r s i t u a t i o n a l l y  i s thought  reduced  c e n t r a l t o academic  f o r t h e L2 l e a r n e r i f t h e  to the appropriate  b y t h e t e x t and n e c e s s a r y  c u r r i c u l u m must be r e l e v a n t and a c c e s s i b l e  Though L2 r e s e a r c h e r s have d i s c u s s e d  background  f o r L2 p r o c e s s i n g to the l e a r n e r .  differences  c o n t e x t d e p e n d e n t and i n d e p e n d e n t d i s c o u r s e level,  In i t s  t o be c o n t e x t  L a t e r i n development a n d / o r situations  i n the language  casual/informal  c o n v e r s a t i o n communication i s thought  -  between  between  at a r h e t o r i c a l  t h e r e has been l i t t l e a c t u a l r e s e a r c h i n t h i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h young c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g a s e c o n d Some s t u d i e s  have b e e n c o n d u c t e d w i t h f i r s t  area,  language.  language  learners}  5  however,  these  situations with  focus  l i t e r a c y r a t h e r than e x p l o r i n g discourse  variety In  but  sum,  at  present  associated  these  factors  i n the measures  the forms their  are  functions  situations input.  to  to n e g o t i a t e  regard  c u l t u r a l background w i t h young  for  input  of  finds  a  the  b u t has  conversation,  tended that  conversation  comprehension, input,  nor  agreement  etc.),  or context.  to  rather  is, and  than  Studies  learners  of  tend  lacking  difficulties that  in a l l  r e l a t e d to  the p r e s e n t  study  r e s e a r c h b e g i n s w i t h an e x a m i n a t i o n o f  And,  the  to without  t h e v e r b a l and n o n - v e r b a l s o c i a l the l e a r n e r s .  to  continue  and l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d i s s u e s  c h i l d r e n are  with these  of  language  experiences of  i n t e r a c t i o n and o u t p u t This  to  peer organized),  used d u r i n g  interaction situation  g i v i n g adequate  is  (e.g.  check f o r  on w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e  It  (oral  i d e n t i f i e d some  researchers,  "wh" q u e s t i o n s ) (e.g.  have  The s t u d y  i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n with f i r s t  studies  i n general  c o n t r a d i c t o r y and have n e i t h e r b e e n  u s e d by v a r i o u s  conversation,  focus  difficulties  or v e r b a l p r o f i c i e n c y i n  interactional features  (e.g.  on t h e a c t u a l  researchers  with output  have b e e n r e l a t e d t o  on t h e  classroom  situations.  examined i n d i f f e r e n t  focus  in  i n c l u d i n g n o n - v e r b a l and v e r b a l e x p e r i e n c e i n  of d i f f e r e n t  variables  the  on t h e w r i t t e n t e x t  and s e e k l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d a n s w e r s t o  and w r i t t e n ) ,  L2,  tend to  and  finally,  areas. studies is  the  of  input,  concerned. quantity  6 of the v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n English speaking (child,  children  ( o u t p u t ) o f n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e  (NS, NNS) i n d i f f e r e n t  t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d ) . I t t h e n examines  the q u a l i t y o f the i n t e r a c t i o n s i n these  situations  differencesi n  s i t u a t i o n s by  considering not only the i n t e r a c t i o n a l features of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchanges (forms  and f u n c t i o n s ) but a l s o t h e  a c c e s s i b i l i t y and t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e s u b j e c t context) o f these learner  exchanges f o r t h e c h i l d  ( i . e . context  (content/  second  language  dependence/independence).  P r a c t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the Study The  m a i n g o a l s o f t h e ESL t e a c h e r i n o r g a n i z i n g a  c u r r i c u l u m f o r NNS c h i l d r e n a r e : w i t h comprehensible  1) t o p r o v i d e t h e c h i l d r e n  input i n i n t e r a c t i o n situations that are  r e l e v a n t a n d a c c e s s i b l e t o them, 2) t o g i v e t h e NNSs many o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o use t h e L2 o r a l l y i n n a t u r a l s i t u a t i o n s they w i l l  become e x p e r i e n c e d  conversationalists,  reduce the i n t e r a c t i o n a l burden through  grouping  3) t o and o t h e r  s t r a t e g i e s , and 4) t o p r o v i d e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s assist  c h i l d r e n to progress  theoretical academic  from p r a c t i c a l  (expository) understanding  (experiential) to  to f a c i l i t a t e  i s concerned  future  w i t h these goals i n that i t  examines v a r i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h e classroom  to provide  on w h i c h t o base c u r r i c u l u m o r g a n i z a t i o n . Through  understanding  how c h i l d r e n s ' a n d t e a c h e r s ' i n t e r a c t i o n s  L2 r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l  be b e t t e r a b l e t o a s s i s t t e a c h e r s t o  i m p r o v e t h e way t h e y p r e s e n t through  that  success.  This study  evidence  so  the content  a c t i v i t i e s t o L2 l e a r n e r s  of various school  curricula.  vary,  7  1.2  Output: The  mainly  Verbal  earlier  errors  and/or  research  the  output  studies  order  1984:221).  has s h i f t e d  and i n a n a l y s i s  i n L2 c l a s s r o o m s  Thus,  at  of  present,  NS/NNS g r o u p  environments  Research verbal  dynamics  o f group  In general,  learner's  group)  factors)  1983).  Long,  discusses  the  processes 1984).  such  v e r b a l i z a t i o n and  various  Fillmore,  output  outcome  instructional 1976; Strong, 1983;  i s presently  second the  (e.g. identification with  the  i n this  Few s t u d i e s  as a  with  to  and / o r to  (see,  concerned  verbalization is related  interaction  who p a r t i c i p a t e  personality  of  methodologies  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h  learners  studies  1984).  (ESL).  Strong,  therefore  1983;  on output  for instance,  on c h i l d r e n ' s  language  1970's)  interactional  Gaies,  interaction within  language  target  language  analysis  morphemes  p r o f i c i e n c y i n r e l a t i o n to and as an  (see,  Saville-Troike,  o f the  the  and t e a c h i n g  (see,  research  second  language  (since  of the various  occur  second  results  and p r o c e s s ,  L 2 programs  employed  the  recently,  were  language  on L 2 p r o f i c i e n c y as an assessment  report  as  1970's)  to the  o f second  reported  t o method  and d i v e r s e  factors  (prior  of acquisition of various  More  numerous  that  o f output  the products  therefore  (McLaughlin,  of  studies  concerned with  acquisition, of  P a r t i c i p a t i o n and L 2 P r o f i c i e n c y  characteristics interaction  Chesterfield, discuss  output  of  the  (e.g. motivation,  Chavez e t a l . ; 1 9 8 2 ; in relation  to  8  i n p u t , the d i s c o u r s e  f e a t u r e s of c o n v e r s a t i o n  (forms  and  f u n c t i o n s ) are not r e l a t e d to v e r b a l p r o f i c i e n c y , n e i t h e r i s the q u a n t i t y of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the classroom, nor s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of c o n v e r s a t i o n s reduced) w i t h i n v a r i o u s groups (peer,  teacher)  O c c a s i o n a l l y i n f e r e n c e s about NNS from s t u d i e s of input  (e.g. context  the  bound/  considered.  output can be made  (see, f o r example, S c a r c e l l a and  1982a:184)} however, the f a i l u r e of most s t u d i e s to output makes i t d i f f i c u l t  Higa,  consider  to determine to what extent  the  language l e a r n e r i s a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v a r i o u s conversational NS/NNS), and not  i n t e r a c t i o n s (e.g. c h i l d / c h i l d , a d u l t / c h i l d ,  i t i s equally d i f f i c u l t  c e r t a i n discourse  to e s t a b l i s h whether or  f e a t u r e s of c o n v e r s a t i o n  encourage  the  L2 l e a r n e r to p a r t i c i p a t e more a c t i v e l y . For example, evidence suggests that NNS r e c e i v e s i m p l i f i e d input} however, there may  c h i l d r e n do be a l a c k of  v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n by these c h i l d r e n i n a d u l t N S / c h i l d conversations  ( S c a r c e l l a and  input and  d i f f e r e n c e s , S c a r c e l l a and  age  that L2 c h i l d r e n d i d l i t t l e received l i t t l e and  Higa, 1982a«l84). In a study of Higa (1982a) note  to r e c e i v e input} a d u l t  NSs  v e r b a l feedback from c h i l d NNSs. As S c a r c e l l a  Higa suggest, the c h i l d r e n may  not  have even i n t e r a c t e d  enough to r e v e a l t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c p r o f i c i e n c i e s . Why the c h i l d r e n not  NNS  participating in adult/child  were  conversations?  Were they p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n peer group i n t e r a c t i o n s ? S c a r c e l l a and  Higa (1982a:184) note that age  may  be a f a c t o r , the  younger c h i l d r e n were not v e r b a l because they were not  9  responding NNS In  as  naturally  as  older subjects  c h i l d r e n were p r o b a b l y addition,  difficult,  the  the  experienced  t h e r e f o r e , t h e y were u n a b l e  (1980) s t u d y  of  (1980:102) c o n c l u d e s  that  on t h e s e  Besides  having  such as  some e v i d e n c e , f o r  that  1975;  the  those  different, group  NNS  important  tasks,  in different  that  as  it.  In children,  of the  tasks.  children  the  output  ESL  actual  1976,  c h i l d r e n may  interaction peers.  NS p e e r s p r o v i d e  sort  of  input  may a l s o  differ in  There  is  NNS  than adult  S c a r c e l l a and H i g a ,  p r o v i d e d d u r i n g p e e r group  NSs Given  1982).  interactions spontaneous  seems  peer  interactions. Presently,  the r e s e a r c h t h a t  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p r o f i c i e n c y w i t h contradictory. child  several  o c c u r r i n g w i t h age  instance,  Fillmore,  input  o f NNS  t h e way i n w h i c h  d i f f i c u l t y with  children with a very d i f f e r e n t (Peck,  too  tests.  be b e t t e r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s situations,  the  c o n c e n t r a t e on  the c o n v e r s a t i o n s  a p p r o a c h n o n - v e r b a l t a s k s may be a s results  to  -  conversationalists.  d i f f i c u l t y f o r t h e L2 l e a r n e r .  c h i l d r e n had d i f f i c u l t y c o m p l e t i n g  Nemoianu  study  c h i l d r e n may have f o u n d t h e t a s k  Some t a s k s do p r e s e n t Nemoianu's  less  i n the  is  Fillmore  does  discuss  verbal  t h e y o u n g NNS  (1976) s u g g e s t s  that  a c q u i r i n g an L 2 .  group  is  key to  C h e s t e r f i e l d , Chavez e t a l .  somewhat  t h e more  t h e more p r o f i c i e n t L2 s p e a k e r and t h a t  i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e NS t a r g e t  is  verbal  motivation  successfully (1982j  1983)  to  10  support adult  Fillmore's  NS i n t e r a c t i o n s ,  increased English interactions children.  between n a t i v e  however,  252) v i e w s getting  is the  more i n p u t  for  She  between  frequent  English  speaking  findings  as  success  (Strong,  as  use  in learning  gregariousness  or  talkativeness}  NNSs,  or whether  this  contact.  "not  that  the b e t t e r l e a r n e r s but  the E n g l i s h  position  is  Strong  (19831251/  r a t h e r they  are  relationship  between i n t e r a c t i o n and i n c r e a s e d L2 p r o f i c i e n c y . I n  higher virtual  achieving  subjects  e x c l u s i o n of  language". fact  that  there i s  and s k i l l s "  is  that  not  "rarely  interactions  the  languages to  the  spoke  at  all  this  in to  d i f f e r e n c e between p e e r  i n the  "communicative  c h i l d r e n . Though she  a difference, this  explored further.  of  (1984:217) a t t r i b u t e s  a qualitative  u s e d by t h e  there i s  or  fact,  the m a j o r i t y  "used t h e i r n a t i v e  English"  Saville-Troike  and t e a c h e r g r o u p  fact  (1984:209) s i t u a t i o n ,  to".  Saville-Troike*s  t o o f o u n d no c a u s e - e f f e c t  in Saville-Troike's  are  they are exposed  found i n  with  NNS  of  of  a n L2  t o w h e t h e r added c o n t a c t  than t h e i r peers  Strong's  (1984) s t u d y .  such as  the r e s u l t issue  NNS/  correlations  these  proficiency for  m a k i n g more a c t i v e Support  contradict  no c l a i m s  greater  proficiency  child  1984).  factors  he makes  causes  of  and n o n - n a t i v e  (1983*250) a t t r i b u t e s  to p e r s o n a l i t y  a study  they found high  Other studies  Strong  In  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y and more  Saville-Troike,  1983J  NSs  conclusions.  the group  tactics  identifies  qualitative  any  the  difference  11  Some l i n k  between the  work o f Nemoianu personality rate is  o f L2  ( 1 9 8 0 ) . She  factors  the  Nemoianu  use  seemed t o  not  conversational  learning.  indirectly  nature  In that  be  sum,  proficiency, individual  a qualitative  there are  w i t h NNS  verbal  (e.g.  s u c h as  of  the  difference  and  dynamic NNS  a number o f  target  children  t o make some g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s  to  L2 the  those r e l a t e d classroom  i n the  on  the  analysis  to  situations  results  mentioned, i t i s  based  factors  language group).  some c o n t r a d i c t i o n s  those p r e v i o u s l y  related  to  in specific  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the  studies  rate  does  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  personality)  NS/NNS i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s  although there are  use  she  - the  b e t w e e n NS  r a n g i n g from those d i r e c t l y  learner  NNS  learning.  i t appears that  associated  of  a l t h o u g h Nemoianu d o e s  peer group i n t e r a c t i o n s  L2  there  the  made more a c t i v e And,  the  the  (ratio  peer group i n t e r a c t i o n s ,  i d e n t i f y what may  facilitate  are  (e.g.  who  of peer group i n t e r a c t i o n s  seems t o  l a n g u a g e and  l a n g u a g e use  l e a r n more q u i c k l y .  b e t w e e n t e a c h e r and  of  in  that  p a r t n e r u t t e r a n c e s ) and  Those l e a r n e r s  compare t e a c h e r and  i s found  (1980:104) s u g g e s t s t h a t  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t i v e  o f L2  studies  agrees with Strong i n  influence  learning.  utterances to  L2  foregoing  And, of  possible of  this  research: (1) verbal  p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f L2  learning in  the  NS/NNS g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s  of a  second  learners  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e and language,  and  the  L2  influence  therefore learner's  the  influence  the  proficiency  12  (2)  there  appears  interaction  that  to  be  occurs  teacher/adult,  organized  participation  and  the  particular  study,  and/or  participation,  and  learner  these  arrive  at  firm  to  input  assessment  must  three  language.  style  be  the  and  in  verbal  may v a r y i n any  to  background, influence  considered  with  given  of  L2 p r o f i c i e n c y . interaction  processes  i n different  i n various and  that  assess  to  Most  learning  relating situations  begin  to  help  relate  (with  move r e s e a r c h  and  may  importantly,  situations  how t h i s  research  interactants  proficiency i n English  of  verbal  participation  Studies  p a r t i c i p a t i o n must  of  or  additional  concerning verbal  participants)  learner  output  i n studies  requires  tasks/activities  interaction  personality,  L2.  areas  conclusions  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  by v a r i o u s  cultural  learning  of verbal  tasks/activities,  toward  the  learners  existing contradictions.  researchers to  as  during  various  clarify  output  such  relationship  involving to  of  situations  consideration  p r o f i c i e n c y i n the of  output  under  quality  therefore  p r o f i c i e n c y o f L2  hence  Each  its  organized  situations,  situation  factors  motivation,  to  i n peer  i n the  and  (3) o t h e r  L2  a difference  (a  beyond  a  an  product)  proficiency is teaching  various  influenced  second  13  1.3  Input  and  Measures o f S i t u a t i o n a l  and I n t e r a c t i o n : Measures o f D i s c o u r s e  Features  Structure  T h e r e a r e many ways o f m e a s u r i n g i n p u t a n d i n t e r a c t i o n i n L 2 classroom  situations.  Some m e a s u r e s o f i n p u t a n d  i n t e r a c t i o n a r e more r e l a t e d t o p r o d u c t s  o f second  language  a c q u i s i t i o n - the a c q u i s i t i o n o f s p e c i f i c forms i s considered and  associated with various functions during interactions  b e t w e e n NSs a n d NNSs i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s . a r e more r e l a t e d t o p r o c e s s e s  o f l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g a  second language - the relevance input provided  Other measures  and a c c e s s i b i l i t y  of the  by v a r i o u s i n t e r a c t a n t s i n a v a r i e t y o f  situations i s considered,  as i s the i n f l u e n c e o f the  s t r u c t u r e o f v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s o n t h e l e a r n i n g o f t h e new language, f o r i n s t a n c e , d i s t a n c e o f t h e s u b j e c t from t h e speaker/hearer. Before  d i s c u s s i n g s t u d i e s o f i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n  i n terms o f d i s c o u r s e  f e a t u r e s and s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e  ( p a r t s 1.4 and 1.5 t o f o l l o w ) , a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e measures a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each form o f assessment i s p r e s e n t e d to f a c i l i t a t e  understanding  of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . Consider, f o r  example, t h e k i n d s o f measures used t o a n a l y z e  the discourse  o r i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n and those used f o r a n a l y s i s o f aspects  measures  of the s i t u a t i o n a l structure of  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . Each i s b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d as follows.  14  Measures o f Discourse  Features  Studies o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n g e n e r a l l y use measures o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s to a r r i v e at an assessment o f i n p u t . One way o f examining the input r e c e i v e d by the NNS from the NS i s to examine those and  conversation sustaining, negotiating  r e p a i r i n g d e v i c e s used d u r i n g an exchange between v a r i o u s  p a r t n e r s . Measures o f the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s are u s u a l l y concerned with r e l a t i o n s h i p s and enable r e s e a r c h e r s  speaker/hearer  to address i s s u e s such as:  . Are there o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the l e s s competent NNS to initiate  conversation?  negotiate  f o r input?  . I s the input p r o v i d e d f o r the NNS made more comprehensible through the use o f q u e s t i o n i n g and other techniques . Do NSs use techniques  by the NS?  such as c o n f i r m a t i o n , c l a r i f i c a t i o n and  comprehension checks to ensure NNS understanding? Studies o f the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s of input and i n t e r a c t i o n g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about the dynamics o f group i n t e r a c t i o n s i n and  out o f classrooms i n terms of the f e a t u r e s o f the t a l k  addressed to L2 l e a r n e r s , about NS/NNS n e g o t i a t i o n f o r i n p u t , and about NS attempts reduce the i n t e r a c t i o n a l burden f o r the NNS (see, Long, 1981). Thus, at present, i n t e r a c t i o n d i s c u s s e s products utterances  r e s e a r c h on input and  of L2 a c q u i s i t i o n - forms o f  and t h e i r f u n c t i o n s i n i n t e r a c t i o n s , f o r example,  the q u a n t i t y and type of questions  used by NSs i n a d d r e s s i n g  NNSs, the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t o p i c s by NSs f o r NNSs and/or the use  of r e p e t i t i o n by NSs and NNSs (see, f o r i n s t a n c e ,  1983).  Gaies,  Presently, although  the f i n d i n g s from v a r i o u s  studies  o f i n p u t a r e somewhat i n d i s a g r e e m e n t o n most i s s u e s ( s e e , discussion, part kinds  1.4), t h e r e  i s a g r e e m e n t t o be f o u n d i n t h e  o f measures t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s  acceptable.  o f i n p u t have  I n f a c t , most i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f i n p u t  found and  i n t e r a c t i o n have u s e d one o r more o f t h e same m e a s u r e s . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e ( T a b l e m e a s u r e s commonly  I) i l l u s t r a t e s  some o f t h e  found i n s t u d i e s of the f e a t u r e s of  conversational interaction i n adult/adult, adult/child, child/child  e x c h a n g e s b e t w e e n NSs and NNSs. As  i n t h e t a b l e , numerous  researchers  Although assess  there  illustrated  g e n e r a l l y accept  m e a s u r e s a s s u i t a b l e f o r a s s e s s i n g i n p u t and  t h e same  interaction.  i s agreement on t h e measures used t o  the i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of conversation,  f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o i n p u t a n d i n t e r a c t i o n c a n n o t be w i t h these  and  other analyzed  measures. S p e c i f i c a l l y , measures o f d i s c o u r s e  f e a t u r e s do n o t move b e y o n d a n a n a l y s i s o f t a l k i n e x a m i n i n g group dynamics; an e v a l u a t i o n o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of conversations  i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s i s not p o s s i b l e (e.g.  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the distance of the subject matter from the speaker/hearer). conversations,  Yet, i n LI studies of  there are aspects  mother/child  of the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e  o f i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s L I a c q u i s i t i o n , and f u r t h e r , appear t o c h a r a c t e r i z e c h i l d / c h i l d 1977)- F o r e x a m p l e , m o t h e r / c h i l d  interaction  (see, Cross,  and c h i l d / c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s  Table I Summary o f M e a s u r e s o f D i s c o u r s e / i n t e r a c t i o n a l of Conversations  Features  Discourse/Interactional Feature  Adult/Adult, Adult/Child, and C h i l d / C h i l d I n t e r a c t i o n s  Questions (display, referential, " o r " c h o i c e , "wh", "yes/no", e t c . )  H a t c h , 1978 L o n g , 1981 F r e e d , 1980j 198I S c a r c e l l a a n d H i g a , 1982aj 1982b L o n g a n d S a t o , 1983 P e c k , 1985  Repetitions ( s e l f , other)  P i c a a n d L o n g , 1982 S c a r c e l l a a n d H i g a , 1982a; 1982b F r e e d , I98O} 198I P e c k , 1985  Frame s  S c a r c e l l a a n d H i g a , 1982a; 1982b P e c k , 1985  Directives  S c a r c e l l a a n d H i g a , 1982aj 1982b F r e e d , 1980; 198I P e c k , 1985  I n c l u s i v e "we"  S c a r c e l l a a n d H i g a , 1982aj 1982b P e c k , 1985  Confirmation. (checks, requests)  L o n g , 1981 P i c a a n d L o n g , 1982 S c a r c e l l a a n d H i g a . 1982a; 1982b P e c k , 1985  Clarification (checks, requests)  Long,  1981  17  generally  take  dependent,  place  that  is,  The l a n g u a g e u s e d  in  situations  they take  is  easily  language l e a r n e r because spontaneously created,  to  suit  similar  u n d e r s t o o d by t h e NS is  used  in action,  situational  Measures  context  the  L2 l e a r n i n g  relationship situation,  to  other aspects  the d i s t a n c e  and t h e r e f o r e , i t s comprehension  of discourse  concerned with  Measures of Studies are mainly  of  the the  for  (as to  situational  Situational situational  see G a r v e y ,  input).  the  features that  of  allow  speaker/hearer  from the L2  accessibility To move beyond other  s t r u c t u r e are of of  These measures  the  aspects  such  as  necessary.  Interactions conversations  language a c q u i s i t i o n  1984).  beginners  interaction  measures  structure  by  Mohan 1 9 8 5 ) .  the  consider  Structure  or  oriented  the d i s c u s s i o n  conversations,  found i n f i r s t  of  r e l e v a n c e and  features  during  of  of  is  suggested  i n t e r a c t i o n a l or discourse  consider  such as  interactions  examples,  it  n e e d t o be s u p p l e m e n t e d by m e a s u r e s  to him/her f o r  those  have  (see,  t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o move b e y o n d t h e bounds  of  as  interaction in action  facilitates of  conversations  analysis  child  created  concrete r e f e r e n t s are necessary  contexts  learner,  context  i n t h e h e r e and now.  And r e c e n t l y , L 2 s t u d i e s  i n an L2 - " c o n v e r s a t i o n a l social  place  are  r e c r e a t e d o r a l t e r e d by m o t h e r and c h i l d ,  c h i l d and c h i l d . that  the  it  that  (for  are used  detailed to  18  assess  aspects  of the s i t u a t i o n a l  structure  interaction,  for instance,  independence  o f the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchange  of  the s i t u a t i o n ,  accessibility measures  thereby  and  demonstratives)  for  reference  following  text  and because  items  dependent  allow  (e.g. pronominals  upon the context  and/or  the measures  (1976:333)  of situation  on the preceeding o r  (anaphoric).  of Halliday  f o r assuming that  and Hasan  (1976)have  the anaphoric/exophoric  a r e m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e o f one  another,  items  are said to indicate  purely linguistic  items  ignoring  and experience  items  conclusions  researcher  (see, C a r r e l l ,  1982),  the researcher  regarding  the s i t u a t i o n a l structure  Specifically,  t o come t o some  these  general  to a r r i v e  measures  nevertheless at  and v i s u a l  d u r i n g NS/NNS  allow  understanding  aids  conversational  i n the here interactions  i n t e r a c t i o n deals and now, a n d / o r assume  o f the s i t u a t i o n because  v/ith 2)  some  general  of  of an i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n to determine:  conversation  coherence  background  do a l l o w  conversations.  aspects  context  the anaphoric  knowledge  context  language  as dependent  categories  on the  As a n example  and Hasan  various  f o r reference  criticized  reference  these  t o code  (exophoric)  Although  between  learner.  developed by H a l l i d a y  researcher  the' dependence/  d e t e r m i n i n g i t s relevance and  f o r the language  the  been  t o examine  of conversational  the about 1)  i f the  real  i f the  the  objects NS/NNS  background knowledge o f  t h e d i s c u s s i o n makes  r e f e r e n c e to t h i n g s not p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t , t h e r e f o r e , they may or may not be f a m i l i a r to the l e a r n e r depending upon h i s / her background s o c i o - c u l t u r a l knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e , and/or 3)  i f the i n t e r a c t i o n t a k i n g p l a c e between NSs and NNSs i s  mainly e x p e r i e n t i a l (context dependent, exophoric) and/or e x p o s i t o r y (context independent, a n a p h o r i c ) . It  is  to p o s i t that i n the case of anaphoric items, i t  reasonable  i s not c l e a r  that these items e x i s t i n the here and now, and r e f e r e n c e to them may indeed be found i n the t e x t or i n an i n t e r a c t i o n between the assumptions made by the t e x t , the l e a r n e r ' s background knowledge about the t e x t and c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e processing strategies. items i s  Only i n the case of the exophoric  i t l i k e l y that the input p r o v i d e d i s meaningful to  the l e a r n e r because the items used d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n are immediately v i s i b l e and are being used d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n i n an ongoing a c t i o n c o n t e x t . Using these kinds of measures L2 r e s e a r c h e r s can begin to answer q u e s t i o n s l i k e that  followt  . What i s  i t the L2 l e a r n e r s are doing with language  v a r i o u s communicative s i t u a t i o n s ? Is  those  Is  input r e l a t e d to the context of  in  input r e l a t e d to task? situation?  . How f a r removed i s the d i s c u s s i o n from the NNS i n time and space? Is  the input p r o v i d e d r e l e v a n t and a c c e s s i b l e to the  NNS f o r comprehension? How e f f e c t i v e i s  the  instruction?  . What happens d u r i n g the d i s c u s s i o n i n v a r i o u s groups? What is  important to t e a c h e r s ?  learners?  I n sum, s e v e r a l L2 w r i t e r s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e i n p u t a d d r e s s e d t o t h e NNS must b e m e a n i n g f u l a n d c o m p r e h e n s i b l e t o facilitate  L2 a c q u i s i t i o n . To be b o t h m e a n i n g f u l a n d  comprehensible the input provided t o be b e s t  f o r L2 l e a r n e r s i s t h o u g h t  i f i t i s s i m i l a r to that of LI mother/child  i n t e r a c t i o n s as r e p o r t e d  i n s t u d i e s o f motherese  1977? K r a s h e n a n d T e r r e l l , have based t h i s that are l i m i t e d  (see,  Cross,  1983). H o w e v e r , L2 r e s e a r c h e r s  c o n c l u s i o n on s t u d i e s o f i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n to the a n a l y s i s of discourse  features o f  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s and n o t o n s t u d i e s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n a l structure of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . I t i s the l a t t e r , the  s i t u a t i o n a l structure of mother/child  makes t h e i n p u t p r o v i d e d  interactions that  f o r L2 l e a r n e r s m e a n i n g f u l a n d  c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f o r m e r , t h e use o f d i s c o u r s e features during  i n t e r a c t i o n s . Studies  of discourse  features  o f s e c o n d l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s i n t e r a c t i o n s m u s t , t h e r e f o r e , move beyond t h e a n a l y s i s o f d i s c o u r s e  features  of conversations  to  an a n a l y s i s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e r a c t i o n s . T h i s i s not t o say that the study important, the  rather, that  of discourse  features i s not  some o f t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s e x i s t i n g i n  r e s u l t s of studies of discourse  f e a t u r e s may be r e f i n e d ,  a n d / o r removed i f t h e s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s considered. of the s i t u a t i o n a l move r e s e a r c h  analysis  s t r u c t u r e o f L2 l e a r n e r s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i l l  toward c o n s i d e r i n g aspects  l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g researching  A n d , most i m p o r t a n t l y ,  products  of the process o f  a second language, r a t h e r than (discourse features)  solely  of interactions.  21 l.k  Input and I n t e r a c t i o n ? S t u d i e s o f Discourse or  I n t e r a c t i o n a l Features The  o f Conversations  study o f d i s c o u r s e or i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s o f  conversations  between NSs and NNSs has occupied  place i n L2 r e s e a r c h i n recent years  a prominent  (McLaughlin,  1984t240).  R e l a t i o n s h i p s amongst i n p u t , i n t e r a c t i o n and L2 a c q u i s i t i o n are being sought to r e f i n e knowledge about the v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d i n L2 p r o c e s s i n g . At p r e s e n t ,  the r e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s  of the d i s c o u r s e or i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n are somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y and have r e s u l t e d i n l i t t l e c o n s i s t e n t evidence  concerning  how d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s a f f e c t  L2 p r o c e s s i n g , other than to note that there are a great many v a r i a b l e s t o c o n s i d e r and t h a t the frequency or more items v a r i e s with s i t u a t i o n of the d i f f i c u l t y  o r use o f one  (see, Long, 1981). Part  i n f i n d i n g consistency i n reports of  d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s may be the r e s u l t o f gaps which e x i s t i n the c u r r e n t  research.  Much o f the e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h concerns NS, NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n . I t i s g e n e r a l l y f e l t that through s t u d y i n g input d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n , w i l l a r i s e f o r a i d i n g teachers classrooms,  to f a c i l i t a t e  to provide  suggestions  optimal input i n  L2 l e a r n i n g . Thus numerous s t u d i e s  focus on the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  interaction  between a d u l t s and o l d e r l e a r n e r s , both i n and out of the classroom,  i n e f f o r t s to understand how input i s r e l a t e d to  the p r o c e s s i n g o f an L2 (Long, 1981:136). However, few s t u d i e s  22  directly  examine y o u n g  children's  although  r e s e a r c h has s h i f t e d from m a i n l y  linguistic  forms  the  of the i n t e r a c t i o n through  nature  these  forms  as sources  i n t e r a c t i o n s . And,  serve,  of input,  the study  emphasizing  to c o n s i d e r a t i o n the various  of input  Long,  or i n t e r a c t i o n a l  to the examination of other aspects  namely t h e s i t u a t i o n a l Gaies,  1981;  structure  of these  of  interactions,  interactions  1975;  foreigner  Shapira  talk  Sato,  1983; Peck,  i n the devices interactions. learners.  variables devices, (see,  1978; F r e e d ,  1982aj  I98O5  u s e d i n NS, NNS a d u l t s  and/or  No c o n s i d e r a t i o n has b e e n g i v e n some e f f o r t s  NS m o t h e r / N S  1 9 8 2 ; L o n g and  older to  learners*  younger  have b e e n made t o  compare  c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h F T D , numerous  some r e l a t e d t o f o r m ,  t h e use o f  interactional  some f u n c t i o n and o t h e r s  to  both  1981).  In g e n e r a l , adjustments  19811 Long, 19811  1982b; P i c a and L o n g ,  have b e e n f o u n d i n e x a m i n i n g  Freed,  discourse  1 9 8 5 ) . FTD h a s b e e n examined f o r d i f f e r e n c e s  And, although  and c o n t r a s t  of  (FTD) ( s e e , Wagner-Gough and H a t c h ,  and Gough,  S c a r c e l l a and H i g a ,  (see,  1983).  Most r e s e a r c h on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s concerns  functions  and i n t e r a c t i o n h a s  n o t moved b e y o n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f d i s c o u r s e features  of  r e s e a r c h on FTD h a s f o u n d t h a t  during  understanding,  conversations  to maintain  w i t h NNSs t o e n s u r e NNS  conversation,  c o n v e r s a t i o n and t o g e n e r a l l y  NSs make  t o i n c l u d e NNSs  in  reduce the i n t e r a c t i o n a l  b u r d e n p l a c e d on t h e NNS ( s e e , L o n g ,  1981:135)'  For instance,  s t u d i e s have f o u n d t h a t many a d j u s t m e n t s a r e made i n t h e f o r m s u s e d t o a i d t h e NNS - t o p i c s a r e s i m p l i f i e d , and  s e n t e n c e s a r e c l a r i f i e d / r e p e a t e d , and s i m p l i f i e d t o  e n s u r e NNS u n d e r s t a n d i n g , inclusive  conversation  "we" a n d q u e s t i o n s  Higa  1982ai 1982b).  continuers, the  a r e u s e d b y NSs t o e n s u r e NNS e t c . ( L o n g , 1981;  involvement i n the conversation, and  d u r i n g v a r i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n s . F o r example,  forms  similarities/  differences i n the i n t e r a c t i o n a l features of t h i s  I98I).  Though some s i m i l a r i t i e s  i n t h e measures used t o a n a l y z e d i s c u s s i o n 1.3»  discourse  talk  have b e e n f o u n d  features (see  t h i s r e p o r t ) and though s i m i l a r i t i e s and  d i f f e r e n c e s have been f o u n d i n t h e u s e o f s p e c i f i c and/or t h e i r f u n c t i o n s , as Long  (1981:136)  even c l e a r from e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h  differ  serve  mother/child,  NS/NS t a l k a n d FTD h a s b e e n c o n t r a s t e d f o r  (see, Freed,  Scarcella  And, s t u d i e s r e p o r t on o t h e r  a d j u s t m e n t s made i n t h e f u n c t i o n s t h a t t h e s e  not  words  i n s t r u c t u r e and content  forms  comments, i t i s  how NS/NS i n t e r a c t i o n s  ( s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e ) from  NS/NNS i n t e r a c t i o n s . N e i t h e r i s i t c l e a r w h e t h e r o r n o t certain discourse  features are specific  t o e i t h e r NS/NS  i n t e r a c t i o n s a n d / o r t o NS/NNS i n t e r a c t i o n s , n o r h a s e x i s t i n g research  determined which forms and f e a t u r e s o f d i s c o u r s e  are not important  a n d , t h e r e f o r e , a b s e n t d u r i n g some  conversations. For example, Freed  (1981:25)  a r g u e s t h a t t h e most  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Ns/NNS FTD a n d NS m o t h e r / N S  24  c h i l d d i s c o u r s e operates at a f u n c t i o n a l l e v e l ;  the  f u n c t i o n a l i n t e n t of m o t h e r / c h i l d exchanges centres around the a c t i o n or behaviour FTD  of the c h i l d while the i n t e n t  of  i n t e r a c t i o n s i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to i n f o r m a t i o n exchange.  For example, c o n v e r s a t i o n c o n t i n u e r s such as  repetitions  f u n c t i o n i n m o t h e r / c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s to maintain i n t e r a c t i o n , but with FTD  these d e v i c e s are used to a i d  the exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n through (Freed, 1981:24).  Although  clarifying  ideas  she does not develop  d i s t i n c t i o n f u r t h e r , i t appears to be the s t r u c t u r e of the two  the  this  situational  i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s that d i f f e r s ,  the m o t h e r / c h i l d context f o r u s i n g language i s concrete, s p e c i f i c and a c t i o n o r i e n t e d ( e x p e r i e n t i a l ) , the FTD i s probably l e s s dynamic, more a b s t r a c t and ( e x p o s i t o r y ) . Long's  (1981:136)  d i f f e r i n s t r u c t u r e and be r e l e v a n t i n Freed's  general  a s s e r t i o n that FTD  may  content from NS/NS i n t e r a c t i o n s  may  s i t u a t i o n - the f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s  she r e c o g n i z e s , seem to be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s t r u c t u r e of the two  context  situational  interactions.  In a d d i t i o n to s t u d y i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of FTD  and comparing/contrasting  some s t u d i e s have attended (see, Gaies,  1983).  i t with m o t h e r / c h i l d exchanges  to teacher t a l k i n  S t u d i e s of t e a c h e r t a l k  classrooms  ( a d u l t NS  b i l i n g u a l a d u l t to a d o l e s c e n t , a d u l t or c h i l d NNS) found  l e s s f r e q u e n t l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e  or  are  (McLaughlin,  1984:240).  25  As M c L a u g h l i n  (1984)  comments, i n s p i t e o f t h e  large  number o f s t u d i e s done i n c l a s s r o o m s ,  little  known a b o u t t e a c h e r  existing  research  of b i l i n g u a l  teachers  examines the  t a l k . Much o f t h e  interaction patterns  f o r e l e m e n t s o f l a n g u a g e use  some r e s e a r c h h a s  teachers  o r code s w i t c h i n g  s t u d i e d the  on t h e NNSs s u b s e q u e n t  Saville-Troike,  1984).  contrasted discourse  from  1982;  Hoefnagel-Hohle,  O t h e r s t u d i e s have c o m p a r e d /  i n the  classroom  ( v a r i o u s forms  f u n c t i o n s ) w i t h NS/NS i n t e r a c t i o n s , w i t h FTD,  and/or  1977;  Hatch  with talk outside al.,  e f f e c t s of input  (after instruction)  p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h (Snow and  and  during  ( C h e s t e r f i e l d , C h a v e z , e t a l . , 1983«40l/402).  instruction And,  i s actually-  1978;  the  Henzle,  classroom  1979s  (see, Gaies,  Chaudron,  Results of these  s t u d i e s are  i n c o n s i s t e n t and  contradictory.  For i n s t a n c e , teachers  1979}  Gaies,  s c a t t e r e d and  et  1983)..  h a v e b e e n somewhat  have been f o u n d t o s w i t c h  codes  i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s t o accommodate v a r i o u s l e a r n e r s  (see,  C h e s t e r f i e l d et a l . , p r o f i c i e n c y , no  1983).  significant  With respect  to input  r e l a t i o n s h i p has  amongst i n p u t , i n t e r a c t i o n and (see, Strong,  1983).  be  grammatically  more c o m p l e x t h a n d i s c o u r s e  b o t h FTD  and  teacher  been found  i n c r e a s e d p r o f i c i e n c y i n the  L2  And,  although  FTD  has  s y n t a c t i c a l l y from  been found i n the  t a l k have been f o u n d t o  f u n c t i o n a l l y as w e l l as  and  to  classroom,  differ  mother/child  26  interactions  (see,  H a t c h e t a l , 1978; F r e e d , 1981;  G a i e s , 1983). A t t h e same t i m e , h o w e v e r , i t i s g e n e r a l l y accepted that  teacher t a l k constitutes  similar to caregiver facilitate studies  t a l k , which l i k e  L2 p r o c e s s i n g  Gaies,  caregiver  needed t o c l a r i f y  may be b e t t e r  i s doing i n d i f f e r e n t  so t h a t  situations i n studies  the language o f the classroom  understood.  Research w i t h i n another area o f s i t u a t i o n a l - t h e peer group - i s a l s o and  Additional  are related  existing inconsistencies  of d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s  t a l k , may  1983*207).  w h i c h e x a m i n e how d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s  t o what t h e L2 l e a r n e r are  (see,  a s i m p l i f i e d code  lacking  variables  ( N e m o i a n u , 1980; S c a r c e l l a  H i g a , 1981a). Two a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t h a v e emerged, t h o u g h  studies  within  e a c h a r e f e w : 1) p e e r g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n s i n  natural  s i t u a t i o n s , a n d 2) p e e r t u t o r i n g i n c l a s s r o o m  situations. Studies within  the peer group i n n a t u r a l  s i t u a t i o n s have m a i n l y examined s o c i a l s t y l e s 1983$ N e m o i a n u , 1980; S t r o n g , negotiating  d e v i c e s such as t u r n a l l o c a t i o n  of the learner  h o w e v e r , no c o n s i s t e n t factors to  (Keller-Cohen,  i n t e r a c t i o n a n d t h e L2  i nchild/child  discourse,  r e l a t i o n s h i p has been found between  such as i n c r e a s e d p r o f i c i e n c y  s i m p l i f i e d input  1980;  1983), o r c o n v e r s a t i o n  1979)• Some h a v e e x a m i n e d i n p u t , proficiency  (Fillmore,  (Strong,  a n d L2 l e a r n e r  I983j S a v i l l e - T r o i k e ,  access  1984).  27  O t h e r s have c o n t r a s t e d d i s c o u r s e conversations and  Higa,  with older versus  1982a:  features of adults younger l e a r n e r s ( S c a r c e l l a  1982b). A n d , a f e w h a v e c o n s i d e r e d  NS/NNS t u t o r i n g ( P e c k ,  1985). Although  several differences  have been f o u n d i n t h e s p e c i f i c forms used and  i n the f u n c t i o n o f these  with older versus acquire  -  i n teacher  organized  1982a). A n d , a l t h o u g h  taking place  organized  situations (Scarcella  the q u a l i t y of the i n t e r a c t i o n  i n t h e p e e r g r o u p w i t h L2 l e a r n e r s i s r e c o g n i z e d  as d i f f e r e n t f r o m a d u l t / a d u l t o r a d u l t / c h i l d q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e and i t s e f f e c t explored  f o r input,  i s u n d e r s t o o d a b o u t how  s i t u a t i o n s f r o m NS/NNS c h i l d Higa,  questions)  forms i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s  conversational interactions differ  and  (e.g.  younger l e a r n e r s (e.g. n e g o t i a t e  attention), l i t t l e  peer  f u r t h e r ( S c a r c e l l a and H i g a ,  I n sum, a l t h o u g h  interactions, this  on L2 p r o c e s s i n g  i snot  1982a:194).  t h e r e a r e numerous s t u d i e s o f d i s c o u r s e  f e a t u r e s , i n v e s t i g a t o r s know l i t t l e  about  i n t e r a c t i o n except that the discourse  conversational  features  and  functions) of conversations  and  NNSs who a r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g . A l t h o u g h  (both  forms  vary with the s p e c i f i c research  NSs  on  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n h a s moved f r o m a n e m p h a s i s on the nature  of input through the study  c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the nature study  o f these  of l i n g u i s t i c forms, t o  of the i n t e r a c t i o n through the  forms and t h e i r f u n c t i o n s d u r i n g  interaction,  s t u d i e s o f d i s c o u r s e / i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s must be e x p a n d e d  to c o n s i d e r other aspects of the i n t e r a c t i o n during conversations.  For i n s t a n c e , s t u d i e s  situation of  discourse  or i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s might be supplemented w i t h  studies  of the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of c o n v e r s a t i o n s which c o n s i d e r , f o r example, the d i s t a n c e of the s u b j e c t from the speaker/ h e a r e r . To f i l l  a gap i n e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h , s t u d i e s  of  d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s must be supplemented with s t u d i e s of how the s i t u a t i o n a l  s t r u c t u r e of c o n v e r s a t i o n s v a r i e s i n d i f f e r e n t  interaction situations And f i n a l l y ,  with various  interactants.  r e s e a r c h i s needed with v e r y young  c h i l d r e n , w i t h teachers and w i t h i n the peer group, both i n and out of L2 classrooms.  If  r e s e a r c h e r s study how c h i l d r e n  l e a r n an L2 i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s  and compare/contrast  this  l e a r n i n g w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d by teachers i n the classroom,  then r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l begin to provide some of the  answers needed f o r improving the q u a l i t y of L2 i n s t r u c t i o n classrooms.  L2 r e s e a r c h e r s must b e g i n to answer q u e s t i o n s  as the f o l l o w i n g !  1)  in such  Are d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s important to the  c h i l d r e n themselves d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n ? Are they more important to teachers or to l e a r n e r s ? ,  2) How  does the q u a l i t y of c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s d i f f e r from that of t e a c h e r organized l e a r n i n g and 3) is  opportunities?,  How might teachers bridge the gap,  if  indeed there  one, between what happens i n c h i l d organized  and what i s  occurring i n situations  situations  organized by the teacher?  29  1.5 I n p u t a n d I n t e r a c t i o n : The S i t u a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e o f Conversations Recent c o n c e r n w i t h d i s c o u r s e to increased i n t e r e s t ( o r a l and w r i t t e n )  l e v e l p r o c e s s i n g has l e d  i n t h e s t u d y o f p r a g m a t i c s and t e x t  (see, C a r r e l l ,  1982). R e s e a r c h e r s  r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a n L2 makes many c o m p l e x s o c i a l a n d c o g n i t i v e demands o f t h e l e a r n e r :  language i s used  i n a variety of s o c i a l contexts f o r different result  p u r p o s e s . As a  o f t h i s t r e n d i n r e s e a r c h , and i n s p i r e d by s t u d i e s o f  m o t h e r / c h i l d NS i n t e r a c t i o n s , f i r s t  and second  language  d i s c u s s i o n s h a v e made a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e l a n g u a g e o f the c l a s s r o o m , n e c e s s a r y f o r academic  s u c c e s s , and t h e  language o f spontaneous, n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n day t o day s o c i a l 197^5 D o n a l d s o n , Wells,  interactions  ( s e e , f o r example,  1978? Cummins, 1983;  1984; N e m o i a n u , I98O5  1981a; 1981b; 1983; 1984; F i l l m o r e ,  Saville-Troike,  Cazden,  1976; 1983;  1982; 1984).  I n v a r i o u s s o u r c e s t h e language o f t h e c l a s s r o o m has been.termed c o n t e x t independent/reduced, formal/academic, a n d / o r a n a p h o r i c l a n g u a g e . The l a n g u a g e a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n related  t o l i t e r a c y and t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s i n  c l a s s r o o m s i s o f c o n c e r n i n t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s . The l a n g u a g e of spontaneous  i n t e r a c t i o n i s termed c o n t e x t dependent/  embedded/ b o u n d , i n f o r m a l / s o c i a l ,  e x o p h o r i c and/or  natural.  Here, r e s e a r c h e r s a r e s p e a k i n g o f t h e language and communication r e l a t e d t o day t o day, s m a l l group  interpersonal  i n t e r a c t i o n i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s n o t o r g a n i z e d by a t e a c h e r .  At t h e p r e s e n t  time,  LI  and L2  dependent/independent discourse limited  i n s c o p e and g e n e r a l l y  of academic have n o t  discourse  1983:  1984).  Saville-Troike,  of language  referents  1976; that  reference  1984).  is  anaphoric  L2  (see,  1983;  contexts  1983;  do n o t  language  Some v i e w  Fillmore,  necessarily  i n classrooms  (see,  Fillmore,  learners'  as  skills  (see,  interactions  see t h e n e e d t o background  give  social  o r t o what t h e  greater  Wells,  learner is  in different  finally,  others  in  independent d i s c o u r s e and Wagner,  are  1976;  and  context  interdependent Mohan,  1985).  (see,  literacy  the  (Carrell,  -  with  continuum  related  Some  learners' experiences  d o i n g w i t h the t e x t  communicating  -  context  (oral  1982).  see a n e e d t o v i e w l a n g u a g e as  l e a r n i n g as w e l l a s  academic  reduced  1981a; 1981b).  a t t e n t i o n to  situations  note  social/cognitive  and c u l t u r a l knowledge  written)  Moffett  1978;  Others  interactions  somehow d i f f e r e n t f r o m o t h e r  Fillmore,  Saville-Troike,  o t h e r s view classroom  Donaldson,  (see,  1983;  a dynamic  skills  advocate  concrete  context  l a n g u a g e and c o m m u n i c a t i o n a l o n g Still  1984j  Cummins,  guarantee  is  and  example,  1983).  Gaies,  as  1981).  for  because  dependent/independent s i t u a t i o n s  Cummins,  discussions  a rhetorical level  c o m p r e h e n s i o n i n t h e L2  concrete contexts because  contradictory,  Some ( d i r e c t l y / i n d i r e c t l y )  K r a s h e n and T e r r e l l ,  success  context  p r o b l e m a t i c . Many  only at  in social  facilitate  of  somewhat  b e e n f o l l o w e d up by r e s e a r c h  K r a s h e n and T e r r e l l ,  t h e use  exist  are  studies  and And,  a medium o f  dependent/  (see,  Dewey,  1916;  31  This review structure brief  d i s c u s s i o n o f the  independent relates  this  L I and  L2  NS  NNS  and  NNS  the  situational  i n t e r a c t i o n s begins  origins  dependent  on  o f the  current  (informal, social,  ( f o r m a l , academic, anaphoric)  finally,  d i s c u s s i o n to i n t e r a c t i o n some o f t h e  difficulties  d i s c u s s i o n s o f the  distinction  talk.  with  a  It  peer  the  and  then group.  numerous  structure of  dependence/independence,  interactants (child,  adult,  adolescent)  considered. Studies  have t h e i r  of context  origins  dependent/independent  i n discussions of  One  o f the  reasons  NS  mother/NS c h i l d  language l e a r n i n g i s because that  i s , the  contexts  of the  Cross,  child  i n t e r a c t i o n s and  referential to aspects  1977  talk  NS  1977)•  facilitates learner,  i n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e d b e t w e e n m o t h e r s and  i s concretely represented  attention  Cross,  i t i s m e a n i n g f u l to the  children  explicitly  talk  "motherese" or  mother/NS c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s ( s e e ,  NS  with  exophoric)  i n the  situational  i n t e r a c t i o n s (context  etc.) with various are  research  o f v a r i o u s NS,  between c o n t e x t  And  of the  deictic  o f the  or Garvey,  1984,  i n the  devices  immediate are  social  used, such  t e r m s , t o draw t h e  s i t u a t i o n d u r i n g the for details).  their  The  as  child's action  less  (see,  competent  l e a r n s language because i n a d d i t i o n to r e c e i v i n g h e l p  f r o m m o t h e r s t h r o u g h t h e i r use  o f numerous  (discourse features) conversation  interactional  sustaining, repairing  32  and n e g o t i a t i n g d e v i c e s , is  not dependent  Language in  are created,  group,  little  there  Hasan  language  i n action, with  situated  the learner  this  partners  this as  the  classroom which  the  learner.  success  that  i t  of the  dependence.  the language  i n the context  of the exophoric  and now. c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n and  seem t o h a v e  i s said  makes  led researchers  to  fewer  demands  distinct  cognitive  from  t o make m o r e  the language  needed  reduced  or independent,  information  conveyed from  teacher  to learner  text  and Hasan,  of the learner  of  f o r academic  t o be c o n t e x t  the preceeding or f o l l o w i n g  the  c o m p l e x demands o f  I n the classroom, the language  c o m p l e x demands  group  conveyed  action i s therefore,  language  (Halliday  Halliday  concrete  i s said  situation  to  of the peer  communicate d u r i n g  found  peer  is similar  and the i n f o r m a t i o n  and i s i n fact  the  the  children  of concrete  dependence that  that  to t h i s  i n the here  context  conclusion  in  for  the language  to expect  one a n o t h e r  reference  Discussions  the  of the  altered  communication i n i t s context  interacting i s mainly  situation,  of  and c o n t e x t s and/or  that  f o r meaning.  to the actions  i s known a b o u t  (1976s36) s u g g e s t  interaction  its  tied  recreated  i s some r e a s o n  mother/child  while  i n a context  progresses.  Though  or  closely  i s used  o f language  the c o n v e r s a t i o n a l exchange  action  is  upon the r e s t  i s instead  interaction  and  language  rather  than  is  that  situated  the context  1976). T h i s m a k e s m o r e  because  meaning only  i s ,  becomes  of  33  comprehensible  if  from the t e x t ,  and i n t h e c a s e  has  the l e a r n e r i s  the a p p r o p r i a t e background  able  t o make  o f L2 l e a r n e r s ,  if  knowledge  the  about  of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n the t e x t 1976j K r a s h e n and T e r r e l l , research that vary  the  1983). T h u s ,  situational  inferences  structure  the  learner  meaning  (Halliday  and  it  appears  of  conversations  in different interaction situations.  from the  Therefore,  the  provided during these d i f f e r e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s also vary,  and be more o r l e s s  d e p e n d i n g upon t h e demands Studies are l a r g e l y focus  has  of  accessible  first  language a c q u i s i t i o n  children's  abilities  reduced from i t s i n reports literacy  is  that  and t h e  children first  and f i n a l l y  on l i t e r a l  are able  awareness  contexts to  and  in  expressed emerging  "linguistic"  meaning  t h e n c h i l d r e n become onto  particular  create context on t h e use  f o r r e t r i e v i n g meanings 1978: W e l l s ,  research  (language)  The n o t i o n as  ignore  meanings a n d / o r  197^: D o n a l d s o n ,  dependent  or development  information  context.  may  conversations  studies,  from the immediate a c t i o n ,  based s t r a t e g i e s Cazden,  immediate  at mapping p a r t i c u l a r  meanings, solely  to deal with  on l i n g u i s t i c / p r a g m a t i c  and i n f e r i t skilled  of  The c u r r e n t t r e n d i n LI  to favour a l i n e a r p r o g r e s s i o n  input  situation.  b e e n on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n c o n t e x t  and c o n t e x t r e d u c e d d i s c o u r s e . seems  structure  may  t o t h e L2 l e a r n e r  of the s p e c i f i c  the s i t u a t i o n a l  Hasan,  of  (see,  1981a;  based language  for  example,  1981b).  34  A similar instance,  is at  abstract study  the  she  (1984)  between  L 2 c h i l d r e n use  which  academic  achievement  others  (for  1983).  Cummins  embedded outside  at  example,  the  social  for  (1984),  require that  of is  the  need  same  for  and  the  1983;  instance,  the  learners  context  the  skills  those  necessary  reiterated  ability  that  by  context  everyday demands to  and  world of  deal  The L 2 l e a r n e r  embedded  for  Fillmore,  1984;  the  later  qualitative  and  linguistic  reduced.  context  of  In a  a  proposes  typical  however,  time,  to  however,  meaningful  doing note  important  that  the  J o h n and Hymes,  1983).  is  through  the  with  moves  context  talk.  At  so  needs  I98O;  more  a continuum between  reduced  there  s c h o o l . Her viev/s are  Cummins,  classroom,  information along  for  learn  instruction".  that  because  L 2 c h i l d r e n who  the  communicative t a c t i c s  communication i s  classroom  in  the  notes  For  that  v/ho " l e a r n how t o  mediated  further  comments  instruction,  those  linguistically  difference  the  medium o f  s c h o o l are  i n L 2 research.  found  (1982:241)  Saville-Troike,  language succeed  distinction is  Therefore, use  as  Nemoianu,  advocating  the  facilitate  comprehension,  one  L2 r e s e a r c h e r s  comprehensible  dependent  facilitate  on the of  well  context  NNS t o  1972;  as  other  I98O;  hand  language and,  L2  researchers  other  (Cazden, Terrell, are  contexts hand,  and  are  K r a s h e n and  i n concrete on the  input,  situations  understanding  stress  to researchers  are n o t i n g t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n does not n e c e s s a r i l y a s s i s t L2 students i n academic s i t u a t i o n s because  classroom  language i s g e n e r a l l y context reduced. T h i s and s e v e r a l other c o n t r a d i c t i o n s make s t u d i e s of context dependence and independence  problematic.  For i n s t a n c e , the use of context reduced classroom  t a l k i n the  i s o f t e n viewed as some s p e c i a l i z e d use of language  that r e q u i r e s of the c h i l d the a b i l i t y to l e a r n how  linguistic  p r o p o s i t i o n s are used to be able to i n f e r i n t e n t i o n . Donaldson  (1978)  and  As  others put i t , c h i l d r e n must be able to  i n f e r "what i s meant" (communicative i n t e n t i o n ) from "what i s said"  ( p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o n t e n t ) . T h i s view p l a c e s importance  aspects of the u n d e r l y i n g content the i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n and t e x t p r o c e s s o r s and  on  (here, p r o p o s i t i o n a l ) of  the t e x t , but i t ignores  the  l e a r n i n g theory i n g e n e r a l . Some  r e s e a r c h e r s have p o i n t e d out t h a t the focus should not  only  be p l a c e d on aspects of the u n d e r l y i n g p r o p o s i t i o n a l content of the t e x t , but a l s o on what the l e a r n e r i s doing with t e x t , how  the use  of content v a r i e s i n d i f f e r e n t  contexts,  as w e l l as on the background s o c i o - c u l t u r a l knowledge experiences  of the l e a r n e r ( s ) ( C a r r e l l ,  the  and  1982:482). In a d d i t i o n  t h i s view appears to ignore l e a r n i n g theory i n g e n e r a l language i s both a medium of l e a r n i n g and a medium of communication. I t i s not only the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to  infer  "what i s meant" from "what i s s a i d " that i s important,  i t is  a l s o the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to make i n f e r e n c e s (a t h i n k i n g s k i l l ) i n g e n e r a l t h a t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r l i t e r a c y and academic S t u d i e s of context embedded/reduced language may  success also  36 be c r i t i c i z e d of  f o r s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e meaning o f the t e x t  a w r i t t e n p a s s a g e i s somehow d i f f e r e n t f r o m m e a n i n g i n  general. For instance, Wells language  (1981a) n o t e s t h a t i n w r i t t e n  t h e meaning i s found  question arises: background  i n the text alone. Again, a  Can m e a n i n g e x i s t  independent  o f some  e x p e r i e n c e , o r i s i t t h e meaning o f e x p e r i e n c e s  t h a t g i v e t h e w r i t t e n t e x t i t s m e a n i n g ? M o f f e t t a n d Wagner (1976:10) s e e m e a n i n g a s a n i s s u e a t t h e l e v e l o f v e r b a l i z a t i o n - s o c i a l meanings a r e found  i n a l l nonverbal experience,  a c t i v i t i e s and t h e i r meanings a r e o r g a n i z e d i n t o meanings. Perhaps language i.e.  social  linguistic  children having d i f f i c u l t y with w r i t t e n  have d i f f i c u l t y a t t h e l e v e l  t h e y may n o t u n d e r s t a n d  of nonverbal  the s o c i a l / c u l t u r a l  because t h e y have had v a r i o u s background  experience,  meanings  experiences  different;  from those o f the t e a c h e r , t h e r e f o r e , understanding the l i n g u i s t i c meanings r e q u i r e s e x p e r i e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a second  language.  S t u d i e s o f context dependence/independence a l s o tend t o view classroom l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d social/cognitive  skills  For instance, Wells  (Donaldson,  as d i f f e r e n t from  other  1978? W e l l s , 1981a; 1981b).  (198la:265) s e e s a n e e d t o h e l p b r i d g e t h e  gap b e t w e e n what he c a l l s of  skills  the " r e l a t i v e l y abstract formulation  knowledge i n t h e c l a s s r o o m and t h e c h i l d ' s f i r s t  e x p e r i e n c e s " . However, f i r s t  hand  hand e x p e r i e n c e s a r e n o t s e p a r a t e  from knowledge, they a r e i n s t e a d r e l a t e d t o the a b s t r a c t f o r m u l a t i o n o f knowledge encountered  i n the classroom  through l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s  ( s e e , M o f f e t t and  37  Wagner, 1 9 7 6 1 1 2 ) . M o f f e t and Wagner (1976) v i e w a s t h e end n o t  t h e means, t h e means i s f o u n d  e x p e r i e n c i n g and  t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e cognitive/academic  (1985) has  i n nonverbal  i n verbalization - verbalizing involves  a b s t r a c t i n g knowledge from n o n v e r b a l  i n a l l a c t i o n and  literacy  to suggest  experience. In  t h a t there are  universal  components o f knowledge w h i c h a r e experiences  developed  ( s e e , Mohan, 1985). Mohan  b e t w e e n o r a l and  w r i t t e n language,  skills  and  by.  both  by h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s t o  common t o b o t h o r a l and  that  w r i t t e n language  f o c u s s i n g on t h e k n o w l e d g e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t u n d e r l y  the  found  a method f o r i n s t r u c t i n g s t u d e n t s  h e l p s t o b r i d g e t h e gap  o r a l and  fact,  develop  w r i t t e n experience.  There i s a tendency f o r s t u d i e s of c o n t e x t  independent  language to seek l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d answers f o r q u e s t i o n s concerning d i f f i c u l t i e s  r e l a t e d to l i t e r a c y .  (1981a) a d v o c a t e s  e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h the  Wells  o f l i t e r a c y as i m p o r t a n t  For  conventions  f o r a s s i s t i n g c h i l d r e n to deal w i t h  the context independent t a l k of the classroom parents exposing and  t h e i r children to print  other media f a c i l i t a t e  be r e l a t e d  (e.g. to  teacher - i . e .  through  storybooks  t h e i r children's developing  l i t e r a c y . However, the o r i g i n o f d i f f i c u l t i e s may  example,  to i s s u e s other than those  with  literacy  that deal with  Does t h e l e a r n e r h a v e t h e b a c k g r o u n d e x p e r i e n c e s  understand  Hrushovski  print  needed  the meanings conveyed i n the t e x t ? ) . As  (1983*158) comments, l a n g u a g e i s n ' t  "an  independent  vehicle orient  f o r c o n v e y i n g meaning, the understander  p r i n t e d word c a r r i e s to  fully  i n a network  and how t o u s e i t s u c c e s s f u l l y  to  communicate  before  the r u l e s  in different  i n thinking  interactions  develops  the method(s) have g r e a t e r  f o r using i t ,  contexts  (Wilson,  and i n u s i n g  language  with others  t h e y c a n be e x p e c t e d t o f u l l y  literacy  -  about  (experience)  understand  print.  educational  c u r r i c u l a and i n s t r u c t i n g  students  importance than i s p r e s e n t l y  realized  l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s may n e e d more o p p o r t u n i t i e s  i n n o n v e r b a l and v e r b a l e x p e r i e n c e s t h a n those ( e . g . more a c t i v e  As m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , though d i s c u s s i o n s and i n f o r m a l ,  Perhaps  a t a n o l d e r age f o r some c h i l d r e n . O r , maybe  of developing  many c l a s s r o o m s  thought,  c h i l d r e n must u n d e r s t a n d what t h e  i s , how i t w o r k s ,  1979)« C h i l d r e n n e e d s k i l l s  "(re-)  o f i n f o r m a t i o n " . The  o n l y a p o r t i o n o f a complete  grasp t h e thought  person/thing/event  r a t h e r i t i s used t o  small  L2 s t u d i e s  group  to p a r t i c i p a t e now o f f e r e d i n  experience).  of context  o f d i f f e r e n c e s between c l a s s r o o m  e v e r y d a y speech a r e numerous.  are few, language  Recently,  Long  (1981) h a s s t u d i e d t h e t e m p o r a l a s p e c t s  of i n t e r a c t i o n s ,  his  forms,  focus  h a s m a i n l y b e e n on l i n g u i s t i c  both the l i n g u i s t i c  and n o n l i n g u i s t i c  interaction contexts. participants  F o r example,  i n FTD and i n NS/NS i n t e r a c t i o n s  of Long's  situational  study,  v a r i a t i o n that  l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g s  r a t h e r t h a n on of different  he (1981s147) has f o u n d  temporal r e f e r e n c e i n marking v e r b s . the focus  content  though  that  use s i m i l a r  And, although  this  i s not  he i n d i r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e s one may have  implications  FTD i s more c o n c e r n e d w i t h  f o r language present  i s s u e s than with past or f u t u r e i s s u e s . Long (1981:147) views d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r a c t i o n s as q u a n t i t a t i v e ones r a t h e r than q u a l i t a t i v e ones, d i f f e r e n c e s i n degree not a b s o l u t e s . To what extent  t h i s i s true of a l l  i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s i s not p r e s e n t l y understood. In sum,  s t u d i e s of context  dependence/independence are  concerned with the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t i s not unreasonable to t h i n k that the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r a c t i o n s may  vary, however, as Long (1981) notes  d i f f e r e n c e s are l i k e l y Although there may  ones of degree and not  be a g r e a t e r emphasis on  ( q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e ) i n classrooms,  these  absolutes.  literacy  the s k i l l s  underlying  academic achievement through l i t e r a c y r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s not n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r e n t from s k i l l s used d u r i n g  are  informal/non  academic s i t u a t i o n s ( i n other words i n f e r e n c e s are  inferences  e t c . ) From a r e s e a r c h p e r s p e c t i v e , more a t t e n t i o n should  be  g i v e n to v a r i o u s L2 i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s to d i s c o v e r what, i f any,  quantitative/qualitative differences exist  t e m p o r a l / s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s ) . From an i n s t r u c t i o n a l i f L2 students  are to be a c a d e m i c a l l y  provided  (e.g. Are  perspective  s u c c e s s f u l , then g r e a t e r  a t t e n t i o n must be g i v e n to study of the experiences  (e.g. Long'  instructional  they r e l e v a n t and  a c c e s s i b l e to  the L2 l e a r n e r ? To what extent does the L2 l e a r n e r share same s o c i o - c u l t u r a l meanings (experiences) and  have access  to the i n f o r m a t i o n  the  as the i n s t r u c t o r  presented?).  ko  And,  finally  given  academic achievement (thinking,  doing,  researchers  the  skills  and i n f o r m a l  communicating)  to bridge  between c o n t e x t  that  t h e gap  i n t e r a c t i o n are there i s  they are  i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . As M o f f e t t  note,  is  Language  abstracting  should not  l e a r n i n g by d o i n g , versus  and s p l i t  into  i m p r o v i n g L2  and c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d For i n s t a n c e , instructing  students  underlying a l l activities  that  the  focuses  this  instructional  opportunities  i n classrooms,  method o f  conversational  from the i n t e r a c t a n t s manipulating  the d i s t a n c e (as  from  social  is  the a c t i v i t i e s  the  structures  structure  of  case  of  content  discrepencies c a n be  f o r L2  eliminated  learners  interaction in action  concrete r e f e r e n t s to f a c i l i t a t e increase  it  organizing  bound and r e d u c e d d i s c o u r s e  t e a c h e r s b e g i n by p r o v i d i n g a c t i v i t i e s  an g r a d u a l l y  to  removing  between l a n g u a g e ,  Through u s i n g  with  need  learners.  situational  and on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s  which i n v o l v e  learning  on t h e knowledge  and l e a r n i n g .  -  from  (1985) has d e v e l o p e d a method o f  e x p e r i e n c e , on t h e  between c o n t e x t  off  or from the i n d i v i d u a l  experiences of  Mohan  focus  information.  L2 i n v e s t i g a t o r s  i n s t r u c t i o n without  learning experiences i n general,  to  cut  formal written  in society.  L2  (1976:388-392)  makes  learning  same  research  language,  from e x p e r i e n c e that  informal learning  s e e k ways o f  creating in  and Wagner  become a medium o f  the  a need f o r  d e p e n d e n t and i n d e p e n d e n t  on t h e i r it  underlying  contexts  comprehension i n the t h e l e s s o n s and in a l l  o f f e r e d t o L2  learning)  (or LI)  L2,  topic(s) through  learners.  41  1.6 Summary and Conclusions Although there has been a phenomenal growth i n second language r e s e a r c h  on output, input and i n t e r a c t i o n i n recent  years, few s t u d i e s d i r e c t l y i n v e s t i g a t e young c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s . Most r e s e a r c h c e n t r e s on the study o f a d u l t s and/or a d o l e s c e n t s  and o l d e r elementary s c h o o l c h i l d r e n .  Studies o f output or v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n are r a r e l y r e l a t e d to input and i n t e r a c t i o n . Some e f f o r t s have been made to assess NNS c h i l d r e n ' s p r o f i c i e n c y i n E n g l i s h a f t e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t grouping s i t u a t i o n s ; however, the r e s u l t s o f these s t u d i e s are somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y . Some r e p o r t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r o f i c i e n c y and classroom  participation,  increased  specifically  i n t e r a c t i o n i n the L2 and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with NS peers, others r e f u t e these claims and a t t r i b u t e success to p e r s o n a l i t y , m o t i v a t i o n  i n English  or speaking i n one's n a t i v e  language. I n t e r a c t i o n a l analyses  used to a r r i v e a t assessments o f  input have examined i s o l a t e d l i n g u i s t i c items and other discourse features of conversation  both i n and out o f the  classroom. Although these measures may be u s e f u l i n a r r i v i n g at c o n c l u s i o n s  concerning  speaker/hearer n e g o t i a t i o n f o r  i n p u t , they have not considered  the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e  of v a r i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e remain c o n t r a d i c t o r y and  i n c o n c l u s i v e i n t h e i r r e s u l t s concerning  r e l a t i o n s h i p to m o t h e r / c h i l d  FTD and i t s  and other i n t e r a c t i o n s .  42  Some d i s c o u r s e frequently with  f e a t u r e s may, f o r i n s t a n c e , be u s e d more  i n some s i t u a t i o n s  c h i l d r e n ) than  or perhaps with Studies presently  i n others  (e.g. informal i n t e r a c t i o n or (e.g. during formal  adults).  o f the s i t u a t i o n a l  concerned with  independent/formal  problematic  necessary  discourse with  informal/context  examined b o t h  level.  conclusions  need f o r these  with  t h e f o r e g o i n g beyond t h e  c a n be r e a c h e d .  underlying classroom  are  t h e same, a l t h o u g h maturity,  there  i s needed b e f o r e any  In a d d i t i o n , there  studies to r e a l i z e  skills  individual  t h e f o r m e r , few s t u d i e s  Some r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n c o n d u c t e d b y L o n g  and  cognitive  identified  f o r L2 l e a r n e r s , a n d t h e l a t t e r h a s b e e n deemed  (1981), however, a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h firm  dependent/  t h e f o r m e r has b e e n  f o r a c h i e v i n g success  have a c t u a l l y rhetorical  structure of i n t e r a c t i o n s are  c o n t r a s t i n g academic/context  spontaneous d i s c o u r s e . Although as  instruction  that  t h e knowledge s t r u c t u r e s  and n o n - c l a s s r o o m  interaction  may be d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e  background experiences,  characteristics  isa  and m o t i v a t i o n s  l a n g u a g e s and o f the l e a r n e r s .  43  CHAPTER  TWO  A STUDY OF OUTPUT, INPUT AND INTERACTION I N  FORMAL/INFORMAL  TEACHER INTERACTIONS AND I N NS/NNS CHILDREN'S INTERACTIONS 2.1  Purpose and Research This  classroom child the  study  analyses  i n both teacher  organized  teacher's  Questions the s i t u a t i o n a l structure i n the organized  s i t u a t i o n s and i n  s i t u a t i o n s . F o r the purposes o f comparison,  informal i n t e r a c t i o n s with the c h i l d r e n i n  c h i l d organized  s i t u a t i o n s i s also considered.  seeks t o bridge  gaps i n e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h by:  1)  considering the i n t e r a c t i o n s of a teacher  children 2)  The  study  with very  young  ( n o t a d u l t s and o l d e r c h i l d r e n ) ,  moving t h e a n a l y s i s o f output beyond c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e  product alone the process input  ( e . g . who s a y s how much o f w h a t ) , t o c o n s i d e r  ( e . g . how i s t h e q u a n t i t y o f o u t p u t r e l a t e d t o t h e  provided,  the opportunities a v a i l a b l e f o r i n t e r a c t i o n ) ,  and 3)  moving t h e a n a l y s i s o f i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n beyond  consideration of the frequency of occurrence of c e r t a i n discourse of other the  features of interactions (products), to consideration f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n such as  s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r a c t i o n s , here the d i s t a n c e  o f t h e i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n f r o m t h e s p e a k e r / h e a r e r i n t i m e / space  (e.g. experiential/exophoric,  relations), improving This  to assist  expository/anaphoric  i n a c q u i r i n g t h e d a t a needed t o b e g i n  t h e p r o c e s s o f l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g study  an L2.  i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s a s f o l l o w s :  E x p e r i m e n t I i NS t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t e a c h e r s i t u a t i o n s a r e compared/contrasted in child  (NS, NNS) o r g a n i z e d  organized  w i t h NS t e a c h e r  interactions  s i t u a t i o n s i n the classroom.  R e s u l t s here a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o t h i s  s t u d y - no a t t e m p t i s  made t o g e n e r a l i z e b e y o n d t h i s t e a c h e r i n t h i s c l a s s r o o m . The r e s e a r c h i s o f an e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e . E x p e r i m e n t I I i NS/NNS c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t e a c h e r organized s i t u a t i o n s i s compared/contrasted children's interactions i n child  w i t h NS/NNS  (peer group)  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s r e s e a r c h i s a l s o e x p l o r a t o r y - t h o u g h some g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s may be made, t h e y s h o u l d be a p p r o a c h e d c a u t i o u s l y u n t i l f u r t h e r studies of a s i m i l a r nature are conducted. The study  r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h i s  arei  E x p e r i m e n t I i NS t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t e a c h e r a n d i n child  organized  situationst  ( 1 ) To what e x t e n t , i f a n y , d o e s t e a c h e r o u t p u t p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary with the s i t u a t i o n a l child (2)  organized)  or verbal  structure (teacher,  of interactions?  To what e x t e n t , i f a n y , d o e s t h e i n p u t a n d i n t e r a c t i o n  of the teacher vary w i t h the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e (teacher, child  organized)  of interactions,  specifically,  ( a ) t o what e x t e n t d o e s t h e t e a c h e r ' s u s e o f t w e l v e d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s ( s e e , " m e a s u r e s " , p. 47)  vary  with  situation, (b)  and  t o what e x t e n t d o e s  temporal reference see,  "measures")  Experiment and i n  (1)  (twenty-four  vary with  c h i l d organized  t h e NS,  (teacher, (a)  NNS  if  any,  d o e s NS,  and  of  temporal reference "measures") D a t a was as  does  (twenty  vary with  NNS  situational  the the  input  output  or  structure  t h e NS,  interaction  situational  children's  (see,  and  use  measures)  NNS  structure  specifically, of  twelve  vary  with  children's  four exophoric/anaphoric  spatial/ items,  situation?  c o l l e c t e d and a n a l y z e d i n answer follows.  teacher  children's  interactions, the  features  t o what e x t e n t  in  interactions?  does  t o what e x t e n t does  situation,  questions  any,  c h i l d organized)  discourse  (b)  of  c h i l d r e n vary with  particular  see,  interactions  situations:  c h i l d organized)  To what e x t e n t ,  items,  situation?  p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r y with the  (teacher, (2)  if  spatial/  exophoric/anaphoric  NS/NNS c h i l d r e n ' s  To what e x t e n t ,  verbal  of  II»  the t e a c h e r ' s  to  these  46  2.2  Sample a n d D a t a  Collection:  The s u b j e c t s i n t h i s  study are:  1. T w e n t y c h i l d r e n f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a s e c o n d  language  ( n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h , NNS), m a i n l y from H i n d i and Chinese f i r s t 2.  Punjabi/  l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d s , mean age  T e n c h i l d r e n f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a n a t i v e  3«74.  language  (native speakers o f E n g l i s h , NS), mainly monolingual speakers, mean age  3«78.  3. One t e a c h e r , a m o n o l i n g u a l E n g l i s h s p e a k e r w i t h ESL  limited  training. The NS/NNS c h i l d r e n were g e n e r a l l y f r o m m i d d l e  b a c k g r o u n d s . Many o f t h e NNS c h i l d r e n were f i r s t  class  o r second  g e n e r a t i o n C a n a d i a n s who s p o k e t h e i r L I a t home ( o r whose p a r e n t s were L2 l e a r n e r s ) t h e r e f o r e , t h e c h i l d r e n were beginners i n English. A l l c h i l d r e n attended early c l a s s e s a t t h e S e x s m i t h s c h o o l on a d a i l y  childhood  basis.  V i d e o t a p e d d a t a was c o l l e c t e d a t r e g u l a r  intervals  d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r . F o u r t e e n samples o f spontaneous NS/NNS c h i l d of  o r g a n i z e d i n t e r a c t i o n s and f o u r t e e n  samples  t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d i n t e r a c t i o n s w e r e c o l l e c t e d . The v i d e o  t a p e s were t r a n s c r i b e d a n d c o d e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e m e a s u r e s , a s d e f i n e d i n p a r t 2.3.  F o r the purposes o f  a n a l y s i s , e a c h s a m p l e was l i m i t e d t o t h e f i r s t one h u n d r e d  utterances.  consecutive  47  2.3  Measures  and  Analyses  The m e a s u r e s (note:  the  same  used  in this  measures  are  study  used  are  defined  i n both  as  follows  experiments,  1 and  11)« (1)  Output  or Verbal  Output  is  Participation  measured  by the  frequency  of  occurrence  of  following: (a)  utterances/subject: frequency e.g.  the  (Speaker  (b)  count  following  turns/speaker counts  A = 2 turns,  Speaker  A : What  Speaker  B:  Blue.  Speaker  A:  Sure?  three  Speaker  comes  turns  B = 1  turn)  next?  words/subject: frequency e.g.  the  count  Note:  There  Each  subject  were took  Both measures (NS/NNS  (teacher/child  least (a)  children  words/speaker counts  A : What comes  no n o n v e r b a l at  -  following  Speaker  groups  -  one and  turn (b)  of  above  words  next?  participants  a n d NS t e a c h e r )  organized).  three  one  in this  study.  o r more  word(s).  were  applied  in a l l  to  a l l  situations  the  48  (2)  Input  and I n t e r a c t i o n  Speech i n p u t parts,  and i n t e r a c t i o n was measured i n two  w i t h two d i f f e r e n t s e t s  measurement features  consisted  o f m e a s u r e s . The  o f an a n a l y s i s  first  of the discourse  o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s and t h e s e c o n d measurement  was a n a n a l y s i s  o f the use o f e x o p h o r i c / a n a p h o r i c  (spatial/temporal)  reference  during  the i n t e r a c t i o n s .  B o t h s e r i e s o f measurements a r e d e f i n e d  and d e s c r i b e d  as  follows. Discourse The  Features discourse  features  were c o d e d and a n a l y z e d  of conversational  f o r each o f the twelve  p r e s e n t e d b e l o w . These m e a s u r e s o f i n p u t are  adapted  Higa,  interaction  and i n t e r a c t i o n  f r o m a number o f L2 r e s e a r c h e r s ,  1982aj  1982b; F r e e d ,  items  S c a r c e l l a and 1985;  1980; 1981j B r u l h a r t ,  Peck,  1985. 1. or  Clarification restate e.g.  an item  Checks - q u e s t i o n s which v e r i f y ,  rephrase  o r an a c t i o n  s p e a k e r A: I l i k e  r e d and g r e e n  paint,  s p e a k e r B: Red o r g r e e n ? s p e a k e r As I'm p u t t i n g  this  s p e a k e r Bs On t h e t a b l e 2.  here,  o r on t h e s h e l f ?  Comprehension Checks - q u e s t i o n s which h e l p  a d d r e s s e e ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f an a c t i o n e.g.  t o check the  o r an item  Do y o u know what I mean? Do y o u know why I want y o u t o s i t t h e r e ?  49  3. Confirmation Checks - short tag questions which follow utterances and confirm preceeding items of speech or action e.g.  Yeah?  Huh?  4. Self Repetitions - utterances which are the exact sequential r e p e t i t i o n of the previous utterance  (may or may not he  accompanied by some action which i s also e.g.  repeated)  I have this book. This book. This book. I'm skating on i c e . Skating. Skating. .  5. Other Repetitions - utterances which are an exact sequential r e p e t i t i o n of the preceeding speaker's utterance (may or may not be accompanied by action which i s  also  repeated) e.g.  speaker A: I t ' s superman, speaker B: Superman, speaker A: He's f l y i n g away, speaker B: Flying away.  6. Corrections - utterances which correct the speech or action of the  addressee e.g.  speaker A: I'm putting this here, speaker B: No, put i t  there!  speaker A: I put i t on the table, speaker B: No, you put i t on the desk. 7. "You" i n Directives - utterances which the speaker uses to direct the speech or action of the e.g.  addressee  You do that. You t e l l him.  8.  Inclusive  addressee  are e.g.  "We" -  "we" w h i c h  included 17e a r e  9.  Need  needs  Statement  of  "need"  the  or  -  to  I  want  another  "Or" Choice  two  o r more r e s p o n s e s e.g.  Is  it  "Yes/No"  addressee  to  be  blue  a l l  Who i s  it?  Questions respond  -  with  Will  -  or  you.  c o n t a i n i n g the  personal verbs  down. questions  which  this  the  purposes  a l l groups,  a l l situations  include a  choice  actions green?  "wh"  or  are  you l e a v i n g ?  questions  What i s  it?  closed questions the  you hold  words yes  that  and/or  require  the  no  or  (may  action)  this?  blue?  Do y o u w a n t  to  sit  and/or  -  Is  in  action  here.  accompanied by a p p r o p r i a t e  e.g.  applied  and  one.  you p l a y i n g  "Wh" Q u e s t i o n s e.g.  to  Questions  Are  For  to  speaker/addressee,  10.  may n o t  talk  this  d i r e c t i v e s e x p r e s s i n g the  We n e e d  12.  put  speaker  "want" e.g.  11.  the  i n c o n v e r s a t i o n and / o r  going to  We w a n t  designates  another  one?  of analysis, NS/NNS  a l l twelve measures  children  (teacher/child  and  the  organized).  teacher,  were  51 b) E x o p h o r i c / A n a p h o r i c Reference  (Spatial/Temporal)  Reference  was m e a s u r e d w i t h a c o d i n g scheme d e v i s e d  by H a l l i d a y a n d H a s a n (197^)• T h i s scheme was c h o s e n b e c a u s e (1)  i t gives consideration to the s i t u a t i o n a l structure of  interactions  ( e x o p h o r i c / a n a p h o r i c i t e m s ) , a n d (2)  i t allows  f o r t h e a n a l y s i s o f g e n e r a l o r more s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n t s ( b y grouping)  where a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e d a t a .  As p r e v i o u s l y a c k n o w l e d g e d  ( p a r t 1.3)  H a l l i d a y a n d H a s a n (1976) s u g g e s t exophoric/anaphoric  although  that the categories  are mutually exclusive, the w r i t e r  a c c e p t s t h e n o t i o n t h a t some i t e m s a r e a m b i g u o u s a n d may be c l a s s i f i e d as b o t h e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c . I n t h i s a m b i g u o u s i t e m s were t o o f e w t o be s i g n i f i c a n t i t e m s ) , h o w e v e r , i t e m s were c o u n t e d a n a p h o r i c where a m b i g u o u s t o a v o i d "Exophoric"  i s used,  reference to the items  study,  (less than t e n  a s b o t h e x o p h o r i c and error.  i n t h i s s t u d y , t o mean t h a t  (one t h r o u g h  twenty-four,  presented  below) i s s i t u a t i o n a l l y dependent, t h a t i s , t h e here  a n d now  ( a c t i o n ) c o n t e x t o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i s needed t o u n d e r s t a n d what t h e i t e m ( s ) u s e d b y t h e s p e a k e r  "refer" t o . (Similar  j a r g o n u s e d i n o t h e r s o u r c e s is« c o n t e x t  dependent/bound/  embedded, s o c i a l o r i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n / i n t e r a c t i o n , c o n c r e t e i n t e r a c t i o n , here "Anaphoric" (one  through  independent,  a n d now o r d e i c t i c  terms).  i s u s e d t o mean t h a t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i t e m s  twenty-four, presented  below) i s s i t u a t i o n a l l y  that i s , the item(s) being "referred" to  52  cannot be d i s c e r n e d from the immediate concrete i n t e r a c t i o n , but r a t h e r r e q u i r e s background  knowledge of the text  (preceeding or f o l l o w i n g , past or f u t u r e ) and experience (non-verbal, s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l ) t o be f u l l y  understood.  H a l l i d a y and Hasan's o r i g i n a l code (1976:333) was m o d i f i e d f o r t h i s study to i n c l u d e o n l y the items i n the  first  tv/o c a t e g o r i e s , pronominals and demonstratives. The s p e c i f i c measures used were: S p a t i a l / T e m p o r a l Reference - Anaphoric/Exophoric Items (adjusted from H a l l i d a y and Hasan (1976:333)) A.  Items  Pronominals 1. Speech Roles Speaker Addressee Inclusive Other Roles S i n g . masc.  (1) (2) (3)  (4)  (5) (6)  Exophoric and/or  Anaphoric  I Me My You Your We  (7)  he him his (9) Sing fern. (10) she (11) her Sing, neuter (12) it Plural (13) they (14) them (15) t h e i r (8)  : the items "h e r s " , " i t s i n c l u d e d i n H a l l i d a y and Hasan's (1976:333) code were excluded i n t h i s study because of the speakers i n t h i s s t u d y ) .  they were not used by any  B.  Demonstratives  1.  Participant  2.  Circumstance  Exophoric and/or  Items (16 (17 (18 (19 (20 (21 (22  3. D e f . A r t i c l e  Anaphoric  this that these those here there then now the  E a c h o f t h e s a m p l e s was c o d e d f o r i t e m s one  through  t w e n t y - f o u r f o r a l l g r o u p s (NS, NNS c h i l d r e n a n d t h e t e a c h e r ) in a l l situations  (teacher organized, c h i l d organized).  Analyses The  d a t a was a n a l y z e d a s f o l l o w s .  a) E x p e r i m e n t  I  NS t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s and  i n teacher organized  situations  i n c h i l d o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s were a n a l y z e d w i t h  t-tests:  paired  c a t e g o r y A ( t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d s a m p l e s one t o n )  paired with category = two t a i l e d  IA ( c h i l d  o r g a n i z e d s a m p l e s one t o n )  probability, F value.  A p a i r e d t - t e s t was u s e d t o a n a l y z e t h e d a t a f o r t h i s s t u d y b e c a u s e : 1) i n t h i s s t u d y t h e s u b j e c t was t h e same f o r b o t h c a t e g o r y A a n d IA a b o v e . E v e n t h o u g h t h e r e a r e n s e s s i o n s i n each case independent  b e c a u s e t h e t e a c h e r i s t h e same, t h e r e f o r e , t h e  s u b j e c t s cannot requirement  (A, I A ) t h e s e a r e n o t e n t i r e l y  be r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o two g r o u p s ,  of other analyses  a  ( e . g . one way ANOVA), a n d 2) a  p a i r e d t - t e s t i s s l i g h t l y more p o w e r f u l t h a n a s t a t i c comparison  ( e . g . one way ANOVA).  group  5^  b) E x p e r i m e n t  II  NS, NNS c h i l d r e n ' s situations  interactions  and i n c h i l d  organized  w i t h a two way ANOVA: f a c t o r s child  o r g a n i z e d ) , by group  significance  o f F, p <  analyses,  over non-parametric to continuous  o r dichotomous as r e q u i r e d  a n d 2)  facilitates  organized, = F.,  analyses  and n o t  f o r non-parametric  the i n t e r a c t i o n o f v a r i o u s groups and/or  various factors  significantly  (teacher  analyzed  .05.  s u b - g r o u p s on one o r more f a c t o r s priori,  s i t u a t i o n s were  - category  1) t h e d a t a i s " c l o s e "  categorical  organized  (NS, NNS), by s e x w i t h age  A two way ANOVA was u s e d because:  i n teacher  from  cannot  may i n t e r a c t  one a n o t h e r ,  the a n a l y s i s  do v a r i o u s n o n - p a r a m e t r i c  be r u l e d  as w e l l  out a  as d i f f e r  a two way ANOVA  better  of this interaction effect measures.  than  CHAPTER  THREE  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s figures these  and t a b l e s  results  study,  are  i n answer  chapter 3.1  of Experiments  I  and II  on t h e p a g e s t h a t discussed  to  are presented  follow.  i n terms  of  proposed  Results:  Experiment  of Experiment  I,  NS t e a c h e r  c h i l d organized  a)  Participation  T e a c h e r Output Output  of  or V e r b a l  or v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s  the r e s u l t s  presented i n figure  one shows t h e r e l a t i v e  teacher utterances  child  organized  frequencies each of  of utterances  t h e two  significant However,  (of  are:  relative  one and i n t a b l e grand  two. total)  i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d and  T a b l e two  and words  show t h a t  shows t h e  for  in  relative  t h e NS t e a c h e r  the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were  for utterances,  although  situations  in  situations.  rejected for utterances,  F (26,  proportionately  19-7)  c h i l d organized  situations  (see,  results  of  f o r words  d i d not  the a n a l y s i s  (26, 25.9) = 1.14,  p >  .05.  must be statistically  = 3.61,  slightly  used i n  F  in  interactions  discussed  percentage  and words  situations.  The r e s u l t s  (ns),  the  I  i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d and i n  Figure  of  two.  The r e s u l t s  to  Subsequently,  the purpose  the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s  in  p <.03»  more words  figure prove  one),  were the  significant  Figure 1 P r o f i l e of Teacher OutputRelative Percentage of P a r t i c i p a t i o n Uith Situation  W////////////A  •ZJ Uords T/O  c/o  T/0=teacher organized situations (n=14) C/0=child organized situations (n=14)  vim Utterances  57  Table II P r o f i l e o f Teacher Output: A Comparison o f Frequencies of Utterances and Words with Situation  Variable utterances  words  n  X  group 1 n = 14 group 2 n = 14  2.86  group 1 n = 14 group 2 n = 14  498.86  6.43  351.14  F  probability*  3.61  .028  1.14  ns  *two t a i l e d t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e g r o u p 1 = NS, NNS c h i l d o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s group 2 = teacher organized s i t u a t i o n s  58  b) Teacher Input and I n t e r a c t i o n : Discourse  Features  Teacher input and i n t e r a c t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s (forms and f u n c t i o n s ) o f i n t e r a c t i o n s , i s d i s c u s s e d r e l a t i v e to the r e s u l t s presented two and t h r e e , and i n t a b l e s three and f o u r .  i n figures F i g u r e two  shows the r e l a t i v e percentage o f the teacher's t o t a l discourse features teacher organized  use o f the  (items one through twelve) i n  and i n c h i l d organized  situations.  Figure  three g i v e s a breakdown o f t h i s use by item, one to twelve. Table  three shows the rank order o f the means f o r each o f the  d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s , one to twelve.  Table f o u r shows the  r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s of d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s i n each o f the two s i t u a t i o n s , teacher and c h i l d organized, the teacher's  both i n terms o f  use o f the t o t a l items (one through twelve) and  f o r each f e a t u r e , one to twelve. The  r e s u l t s presented  teacher's  i n t a b l e three show that  this  percentage use o f d i s c o u r s e items ( t o t a l o f a l l  items one through twelve) i s g r e a t e r i n teacher s i t u a t i o n s than i t i s i n c h i l d organized  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . However,  the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s of the t o t a l d i s c o u r s e  features  ( i n d i v i d u a l f e a t u r e s , one, two e t c . ) does not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the two s i t u a t i o n s , F (26, 24.6) = I . 6 3 , P >»05i  (see, t a b l e , f o u r ) .  59  1001  Figure 2 P r o f i l e of Teacher Input & Interaction: Relative Percentage of Total Discourse Features uith Situation :  V O = teacher organized situations C/0 = c h i l d organized situations  6o  Figure 3 P r o f i l e of Teacher Input & Interact ion •• Percentage Use of Tuelve Discourse Features Across Situation  1  1  2  3  4  5  7  6 PPSTI  8  9  10  > f  1.  clarification  checks  7.  "you"  2.  comprehension  checks  8.  inclusive  3.  confirmation  9.  need  4.  self-repetitions  1.0.  "or c h o i c e "  5.  other  11.  "wh"  6.  corrections  12.  "yes/no"  repetitions  12  Iroc  1 u u \ul  checks  11  in  directives "we"  statements questions  questions questions  61  Table I I I A Comparison of the Teacher's Use of Twelve Discourse Features by Rank with Situation  TEACHER ORGANIZED Rank Features high "yes/no" questions 1 in directives  SITUATIONS Means*  CHILD ORGANIZED  Rank Features  Means*  6.00  1  "yes/no" questions  7.57  3.93  2  "wh" questions  5.86  2  "you"  3  "wh" questions  2.71  3  "you"  in directives  4.57  4  need statements  1.56  4  confirmation checks  3.00  5  clarification checks  1.43  5  self-repetitions  2.71  6  confirmation checks  1.14  6  inclusive "we"  2.29  7  self-repetitions  .93  7  need statements  2.21  8  inclusive "we"  .93  8  clarification checks  1.50  9  "or choice" questions  .64  9  "or choice" questions  .86  10  other repetitions  .36  10  other repetitions  .71  11  comprehension checks  .21  11  comprehension checks  .11  12 low  corrections  .00  12  corrections  .00  Means r e p o r t e d are those adjusted f o r t - t e s t  analyses.  62  Table IV P r o f i l e of Teacher Input and Interaction: A Comparison of Frequencies of Twelve Discourse Features with Situation  Variables  n  df  Feature 1. c l a r i f i c a t i o n group 1 checks n=14 26 group 2 n=14 25 2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8.  comprehension group 1 checks n=14 26 group 2 n=14 23 confirmation checks  selfrepetitions  other repetitions  corrections  "you" in directives  inclusive "we"  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 23  X  1.42 1.50 0.21 0.29 1.14 3.00  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 23  0.93  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 17  0.63  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 0 group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 26 group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 25  2.71  1.64 0.0 0.0 3.47 3.88 0.93 2.29  F  probability  1.55  ns  2.06  ns  2.02  ns  2.26  ns  6.68  .002  0.00  ns  1.25  ns  1.65  ns  63 T a b l e IV continued  Variables 9.  need statements  10. "or c h o i c e " questions  11. "wh" questions  12.  "yes/no" questions  T o t a l features one through twelve  n  df  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 25 group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 25  X 1.57 2.21 0.64 0.86  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 22  2.71  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 26  6.00  group 1 n=14 26 group 2 n=14 25  5.86  5.86 19.86 31.57  F  probability  1.61  ns  1.79  ns  2.68  ns  1.22  ns  1.63  ns  The  results  o f the rank  o r d e r i n g o f t h e means  o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s one t h r o u g h similar (see, by  i n both  table  t e a c h e r and i n c h i l d  three). This result  the r e s u l t s  o f the a n a l y s i s  ( e a c h i t e m one t h r o u g h Only  one i t e m p r o v e d  r e p e t i t i o n s " was u s e d teacher organized F  (26,  16.8)  c) Teacher  =  twelve  Input  of the i n d i v i d u a l  significant  items  given i n figure the r e l a t i v e items  situations, five  over  child  total  items,  twenty-four) and  child  organized  situations,  Exophoric/Anaphoric  Reference) and  i s discussed relative f o u r and i n t a b l e  anaphoric  to the r e s u l t s  five.  o f t h e use o f  t o t a l ) by t h i s  shows t h e r e l a t i v e exophoric  "other  p<.002.  teacher  t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d and c h i l d  total  four.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e  percentages  ( o f grand  features  - discourse feature  T h i s t e a c h e r ' s use o f e x o p h o r i c reference  situations  i s somewhat s u b s t a n t i a t e d  and I n t e r a c t i o n s  (Spatial/Temporal  organized  t w e l v e ) , as presented "in t a b l e  situations  6.68,  i s somewhat  F i g u r e f o u r shows exophoric/anaphoric i n e a c h o f t h e two organized.  f r e q u e n c i e s o f t e a c h e r use o f the  to anaphoric  items  and f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l  ( p r o p o r t i o n ) f o r the items  (one t h r o u g h  f o r e a c h o f t h e two s i t u a t i o n s ,  organized.  Table  teacher  65  Figure 4 Profile of Teacher Input & Interaction: Relative Percentages of Reference Items (1 through 24) Uith Situation  IRnaphoric  ^Fxnehnrir  VO-  LVO  VO = teacher organized situations OO = child organized situations  Table V P r o f i l e of Teacher Input and Interaction: A Comparison of Frequencies of Two Reference Categories with Situation  Variables: (Exophoric to Anaphoric Ratio)  SITUATIONS Teacher Organized  Reference (difference) Item (1-24) X df 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  I me my we you your he him his she her it they them their these this here now those there that then the  Total Items 1 through 24 EX/AN Ratio  6.36 1.36 0.86 4.93 17.57 4.86 -0.07 0.00 -0.21 -0.50 -1.36 -7.86 0.29 0.00 -0.29 0.43 3.14 1.43 0.93 0.14 0.43 -2.21 -1.00 -9.50  13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13  X 5.25 1.66  df 12  Child Organized  (difference) T probability X df 4.27 3.98 1.19 4.39 7.96 4.76 -0.14 0.00 -1.38 -0.23 -2.14 -2.81 0.50 0.00 -1.75 1.15 3.44 3.55 2.62 1.47 0.52 -2.30 -1.87 -4.75  .001 .002 ns .001 .001 .001 ns ns ns ns .05 .02 ns ns ns ns .004 .004 .02 ns ns .04 ns .001  T probability 1.81 ns  3.57 0.79 1.14 0.93 12.57 3.21 0.57 0.29 0.07 0.43 0.21 -0.43 -0.43 0.07 0.00 0.57 2.21 0.93 0.29 0.21 0.86 1.64 0.29 -2.93  13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13  T probability 4.02 3.02 1.32 2.74 5.16 4.61 2.28 1.75 0.37 1.71 0.90 -0.33 -1.31 0.29 0.00 2.83 3.25 3.24 1.30 0.90 2.75 3.63 1.30 -2.15  .001 .01 ns .017 .001 .001 .04 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns .01 .006 .006 ns ns .017 .003 ns .05  The  results  show  that:  1) t h e t e a c h e r ' s p e r c e n t a g e is  more e x o p h o r i c t h a n a n a p h o r i c  child  organized situations  2) t h e p e r c e n t a g e increases  four),  i n both  (see, f i g u r e  of anaphoric  substantially  situations  3)  use o f r e f e r e n c e i t e m s  items  t e a c h e r and four),  used  by t h e t e a c h e r  i n the t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d  over the c h i l d  organized situations  (see, table  however,  proportionately  (exophoric to anaphoric r a t i o ) the  t e a c h e r ' s use o f i t e m s does n o t v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y situation, k)  t = 1.81, d f =12, p > . 0 5  the r e l a t i v e  items v a r i e s  use o f i n d i v i d u a l  (see, table  with  five),  and  e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c  somewhat w i t h s i t u a t i o n  (see, table  five),  specifically: i)  some  items  are used  (pronominals  by t h i s  exophorically "I,  me,  and  demonstratives)  teacher c o n s i s t e n t l y  than a n a p h o r i c a l l y  we, y o u , y o u r ,  this  more  - items  and h e r e " were  more e x o p h o r i c i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s ii)  some  i t e m s were u s e d  the t e a c h e r i n c h i l d  more e x o p h o r i c a l l y by organized  situations  o n l y and n o t i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d - items iii)  "he, t h e s e and t h e r e "  one i t e m was more e x o p h o r i c only  situations  than  anaphoric  i n teacher organized situations,  not used  i n child  organized situations  i t was -  "now"  68  iv)  one  i t e m was u s e d  consistently  anaphorically. than teacher v)  vi)  one  i t e m was u s e d more  the  teacher  not  i n teacher  teacher  in child  not  vary  were  use  they,  not  used  used  of  -  enough  and  as  child  =  "that"  and not  in  with their, to  be as  situation those,  did "my, h i m ,  then"  significant  -  were  and/or  frequently  anaphorically in a l l organized.  child  it"  remaining items  teacher  and  anaphorically i n  "her,  the  them,  by the  exophorically teacher  more  significantly  she,  "the"  organized situations  situations  teachers  either  used  the  e x o p h o r i c a l l y by  organized situations  the  his,  -  organized situations  v/ere  organized vii)  e x o p h o r i c a l l y by  in a l l situations  two i t e m s  more  situations,  69  3.2  Results:  Experiment  The r e s u l t s interactions  of Experiment  arej  a)  Children's  NNS  Output children is in figure relative  two  i n terms  NNS)  of  of  t h e two  utterances  and words  non-native  speakers  organized  situations (see,  for  figure  Verbal participation situation  (see,  each  (teacher  t h e NS,  (output)  relative NNS  i n each of  was  the  organized.  was  percentage  much g r e a t e r  in  teacher  or output six):  was  varies  1)  of  situations  than i n teacher organized  and 2)  for  shows t h e  for  occurrence  p<.03,  verbal  of and  in  child  organized  five).  table  utterances  six  the  c h i l d r e n , both native  of E n g l i s h , than i t  shows  and words  the r e l a t i v e  the  five  of  NNS  presented  situations  Table  t e a c h e r and c h i l d  organized  t h e NS,  Figure  and words  show t h a t  child  the r e s u l t s  total)  verbal participation  children's  Participation  for  utterances  utterances  The r e s u l t s  with  grand  i n each of  situations,  situations  and i n  to  six.  child organized).  frequencies children's  (of  NNS  or Verbal  relative  and i n t a b l e  percentages  organized,  Output  discussed  five  (NS,  NS,  or v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n  participation group  II,  i n teacher organized  situations NS,  II  greater  the f r e q u e n c y of  significantly  the frequency in child  of  organized  situations,  F =  o c c u r r e n c e o f words  4.62, was  70  Figure 5 P r o f i l e of NS, NNS Children's Output Percentage of P a r t i c i p a t i o n With Situation  NNS NNS  NS  NS  NNS NNS  words ^Utterances  NS NS  T/0=teacher organized situations (n=14) C/0=child organized situations (n=14)  NS = n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers NNS = n o n - n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers  • P r o p o r t i o n of words to u t t e r a n c e s :  T/O  NS = 3.7 NNS = 2.5  C/O  NS = 3.8 NNS = 3.2  71  Table VI P r o f i l e of NS, NNS Children's Output: A Comparison* of Frequencies of Utterances and Words with Situation Variables: Verbal Participation  Sources of Variation  1. Utterances situation (T/O, C/0) group (NS, NNS) sex covariates above with age (situation x group) (situation x sex) (group x sex) (situation x group x sex) 2. Words  situation group sex covariates above with age (situation x group) (situation x sex) (group x sex) (situation x group x sex)  *Two way ANOVA  df  ms  F  significance of F  1357.85 0.02 277.89  1 1 1  1357.85 0.02 277.89  23.75 0.00 4.86  .001 ns .03  263.99  1  263.99  4.62  .03  86.94  1  86.94  1.52  ns  60.37 97.85  1 1  60.37 97.85  1.06 1.71  ns ns  235.47  1  235.47  4.12  .04  20569.64 1379.02 4514.02  1 1 1  20569.64 1379.02 4514.02  27.91 1.87 6.12  .001 ns .01  6809.37  1  6809.37  9.24  .01  1355.79  1  1355.79  1.84  ns  2126.93 1591.76  1 1  2126.93 1591.76  2.89 2.16  ns ns  2537.04  1  2537.04  3.44  ns  SS  72  g r e a t e r i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s than i n teacher organized s i t u a t i o n s , F = 9.24, p < . 0 0 3 .  This increase i n c h i l d  s i t u a t i o n s was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  organized  g r e a t e r f o r e i t h e r the NS or  the NNS c h i l d r e n , however, age and sex both emerged as significant  f a c t o r s . Both the frequency of occurrence of  u t t e r a n c e s (F = 4.62, p < . 0 3 ) and of words (F = 9-24, p < . 0 0 3 ) i n c r e a s e d with age.  I n g e n e r a l , boys used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  u t t e r a n c e s (F = 4.86, p < . 0 3 ) and more words (F = 6.12, p<.01) than g i r l s .  In a d d i t i o n , E n g l i s h speaking boys used  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more u t t e r a n c e s than E n g l i s h speaking g i r l s i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s , F = 4.12, p<.04. b) NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s Input and I n t e r a c t i o n : Discourse Features R e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s of the d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s used d u r i n g NS, NNS c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s i n teacher •and i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s are presented i n f i g u r e s i x and i n t a b l e seven and e i g h t . Figure s i x shows the percentage  use ( o f grand t o t a l ) of d i s c o u r s e items  (one through twelve) i n each of the two s i t u a t i o n s , teacher and c h i l d organized by the NS and NNS c h i l d r e n . Table seven g i v e s a summary of the r e s u l t s o f the two way ANOVA concerning the r e l a t i v e  f r e q u e n c i e s o f the  t o t a l d i s c o u r s e items and of each o f the twelve  items  as used by the NS and NNS c h i l d r e n i n the two s i t u a t i o n s . Table e i g h t shows the rank order of the grand means f o r each of the twelve d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s used by these children.  73  P r o f i l e of NS, NNS Children's Input 6 Interaction: Relative Percentages of Total Discourse Features u i t h Situation  100 80 60 40 20  M  0 T/0  (NS+NNS)  T/0 NS  c/o (NS+NNS)  T/0 = teacher organized situations C/0 = c h i l d organized situations  NNS  NS = n a t i v e E n g l i s h s p e a k e r s = non-native E n g l i s h speakers  v/////////m  c/o  NNS  74  Table VII P r o f i l e of NS, NNS Children's Input and Interaction: A Comparison* of Frequencies of Twelve Discourse Features with Situation Variables: 12 Discourse Sources Features of variation Total Features (1 through 12 below) 1. clarification situation (T/O, checks C/O) 2. comprehension checks group (NS, NNS) 3. confirmation sex checks covariates 4. s e l f above with age repetitions 5. other (situation x repetitions group) 6. corrections 7. "you" in (situation x directives sex) 8. inclusive "we" 9. need statements (group x sex) 10. "or choice" questions 11. "wh" questions (situation x 12. "yes/no" group x sex) questions Summary of significant items 1 to 12 above 1. see above 2. 3. 4. 7. 811. 12.  *Two way ANOVA  situation (situation x group) situation situation situation (situation x group x sex) situation group (situation x group x sex with age)  Significance of F  SS  df  MS  F  196.72  1  196.72  16.91  .001  12.42 35.14  1 1  12.42 35.14  1.07 3.02  ns ns  39.76  1  39.76  3.42  ns  9.56  1  9.56  0.82  ns  0.02  1  0.02  .002  ns  38.65  1  38.65  3.32  ns  53.65  1  53.65  4.61  .03  1.75  1  1.75  13.55  .001  0.04 7.51 7.24 5.90  1 1 1 1  0.04 7.51 7.24 5.90  4.36 13.50 4.69 15.42  .04 .001 .03 .001  0.28 6.26 10.48  1 1 1  0.28 6.26 10.48  4.50 12.01 11.97  .04 .001 .001  8.38  1  8.38  9.58  .002  Table VIII (NS + NNS) Children's O v e r a l l Use of Discourse Features by Rank Across S i t u a t i o n  Ranks high  Grand Means X  Features  1  Self-repetitions  .81  2  "yes/no"  .37  3  confirmation  4  "wh"  5  "you"  in d i r e c t i v e s  .18  6  other  repetitions  .12  7  need  statements  .11  8  c l a r i f i c a t i o n checks  .10  9  inclusive  .05  questions checks  questions  "we"  .30 .30  10  corrections  .03  11  comprehension checks  .01  12  "or c h o i c e "  .00  questions  *Means r e p o r t e d are those adjusted for two-way ANOVA  76  The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d children's  i n figure  p e r c e n t a g e use o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s  s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c h i l d organized organized Table  s i x show t h a t t h e  situations  - f o r both  seven g i v e s the  f e a t u r e s one t h r o u g h children's  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  over  t h e NS a n d NNS  teacher  children.  l e v e l of significance  twelve  interactions.  situations  increases  f o r discourse  a s u s e d d u r i n g t h e NS, NNS  Table  seven a l s o  shows t h e l e v e l  f o r the o v e r a l l use o f d i s c o u r s e  features  b y t h e c h i l d r e n , NS a n d NNS. The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e m a i n e f f e c t was s i t u a t i o n , F = 16.91, p < . 0 0 1 , t h e  indeed  use o f t h e t o t a l  d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s b y t h e c h i l d r e n was f a r g r e a t e r i n c h i l d organized  s i t u a t i o n s t h a n i t was i n t e a c h e r  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . Age a n d s e x w e r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s i n t h i s case, interaction  however, f u r t h e r  analysis  revealed a three  ( s i t u a t i o n x g r o u p (NS, NNS) x s e x ) , F = 4 . 6 l  p < . 0 3 , b o y s u s e d more d i s c o u r s e i t e m s  i n teacher  s i t u a t i o n s a n d g i r l s u s e d more i n c h i l d o r g a n i z e d  organized situations.  As f a r a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s (one twelve)  way  through  were c o n c e r n e d , o n l y one s p e c i f i c i t e m emerged a s  s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h t h e c o v a r i a t e s a n d age ( s e e , t a b l e - "yes/no" q u e s t i o n s , F = 9 ' 5 ° t  p<.002. Further  seven)  analysis  o f t h i s f i n d i n g r e v e a l e d t h a t NSs u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i s c o u r s e  items  t h a n NNSs, F = 5«24, p<;,002, a n d  77  that  age  was  s i g n i f i c a n t across  "yes/no" q u e s t i o n s age.  In a d d i t i o n ,  significant  increased the  f o r NS  use  groups,  that  f o r b o t h NS  of  i s the  and  NNS  of  children  "yes/no" q u e s t i o n s  boys i n c h i l d o r g a n i z e d  use  was  with  most  situations,  F =  11.97' P <«001. The varied For  use  of other  i n l e v e l of  instance,  confirmation (F=  4.69,  and  NNS  also  children  repetitions child The  individual  s i g n i f i c a n t with  organized  i s attributed children  children  (F = 13«56,  checks  u s e d more o f t h e s e  NNS  the  the  items.  p<.001),  self-repetitions  s i t u a t i o n - both  items i n c h i l d  situations. (NS,  NNS),  organized  Self-repetitions F =  t o a g r e a t e r use  NS  of  in a l l situations,  10.18, self-  both  teacher  organized. analysis two  Comprehension (teacher,  o f some d i s c o u r s e  v/ay  features  checks proved  significant for  c h i l d organized) x group  i t e m s w h i c h was situations  due  to the  NNS  (NS,  The  use  for  g r o u p x sex,  i n teacher  inclusive F = 4.18,  "we" p<  situation  NNS),  children's  s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater  t h a n i t was  of the  yielded  interactions:  p < . 0 4 . T h i s was  ii)  with  s i g n i f i c a n t f o r group  by  significant i)  proved  over teacher  proved  f e a t u r e s by  (F = 13.50, p < . 0 0 1 ) , and  checks  p<.002. This  and  significance  clarification  p<.03)  situations  discourse  use  4.36,  of  these  in child  organized  revealed .04.  F =  organized  situations.  a significant  T h i s was  due  to  a  result  g r e a t e r use of t h i s item by NS boys. F u r t h e r  analysis  of t h i s item r e v e a l e d a three way i n t e r a c t i o n ( s i t u a t i o n x group x sex) - NS boys used more i n s t a n c e s of i n c l u s i v e  "we" i n c h i l d organized  situations,  F = 4 . 5 0 , p < .04. iii)  "You" i n d i r e c t i v e s proved s i g n i f i c a n t f o r s i t u a t i o n x group, F = 5*31» p < . 0 0 2 , and f o r s i t u a t i o n by sex, F = 15.42, p < , 0 0 1 . NS boys used t h i s item more f r e q u e n t l y  i n c h i l d organized  situations. iv)  "V/h" q u e s t i o n s y i e l d e d  significant results f o r  s i t u a t i o n x group, F = 4 . 1 3 , P <.007, and f o r s i t u a t i o n x sex, F = 12.00, p <.001.  Again t h i s was  e x p l a i n e d by the more frequent use o f "wh" q u e s t i o n s by NS boys i n c h i l d organized The  situations.  remaining d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s (not p r e v i o u s l y  d i s c u s s e d as s i g n i f i c a n t ) were e i t h e r not s i g n i f i c a n t and/or used too i n f r e q u e n t l y make t h e i r a n a l y s i s  by a l l c h i l d r e n feasible.  i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s to  79  c) NS, NNS Structure  C h i l d r e n ' s Input  and I n t e r a c t i o n :  - Exophoric/Anaphoric  Situational  (Spatial/Temporal)  Reference The  results  o f the a n a l y s i s  NS and NNS  children  organized  situations  i n t e a c h e r . o r g a n i z e d and i n c h i l d are presented  table  n i n e . F i g u r e seven  grand  total)  by  situations.  children  Table  nine  exophoric  and a n a p h o r i c  organized  situations  NS and  and a n a p h o r i c  results  exophoric situations  r e f e r e n c e items  used  organized  frequencies of  i n t e a c h e r and  child  by t h e two g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n ,  than  i n figure  (NS and NNS)  and a n a p h o r i c  r e f e r e n c e items  on t a b l e  more  seven  items,  nine both  organized  organized  over  groups o f c h i l d r e n ,  proportion of exophoric greater i n child  to anaphoric  (NS and NNS  p<.002) i n child  situations f o r  I n a d d i t i o n , the items  situations,  children) effect  The  finding,  were u s e d  organized  NS and NNS.  organized  situations.  (F = 15.68,  (F = 15.68, p < . 0 0 1 ) ,  of  organized  substantiate this  exophoric  teacher  percentage  i n child  as w e l l a s a n a p h o r i c situations  show t h a t a l l  use a g r e a t e r  t h e y do i n t e a c h e r  presented  significantly  A group  (of  r e f e r e n c e items  shows t h e r e l a t i v e  as used  and i n  percentage  i n t e a c h e r and c h i l d  as p r e s e n t e d  groups of c h i l d r e n  all  seven  NNS.  The  results  i n figure  shows t h e r e l a t i v e  of exophoric  t h e NS and NNS  o f the r e f e r e n c e items f o r  was  significantly  F = 16.56,  also  p<.001.  emerged a s  80 Figure  7  P r o f i l e of NS, NNS Children's Input & interact ion: Relative Percentages of Tuo Reference Categories u i t h Situation  100  a) *NS + NNS  80 60 40 20 •  FIN  0 T/0 EX (NS+NNS)  C/0 AN (NS+NNS)  EX (NS+NNS)  AN (NS+NNS)  NS, NNS = n a t i v e s p e a k e r s , n o n - n a t i v e speakers AN, EX = a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e , e x o p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e  100  b) *NS, NNS  80 60 40 W777I77A  ?n  V//////A V//////// ///  MM 0 T/0 NS  T/0  NS  c/o  T/0 NNS  ]RN  NNS  NS  NS  c/o  NNS  NNS  - t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s , C/O = c h i l d o r g a n i z e d situations  81  Table IX P r o f i l e of NS, NNS Children's Input and Interaction: A Comparison of Two Categories of Reference Items (1 to 24) by Proportion with S i t u a t i o n  Variables: Reference Items  Sources of variation  SS  MS  F  1 1 .1  170.09 17.42 16.90  16.56 1.70 1.65  .001 ns ns  1 1 1  58.00 39.89 1.03  5.65 3.89 0.10  .02 .05 ns  1  28.58  2.78  ns  1  89.15  8.68  .004  0.34 0.06  1 1  0.34 0.06  4.06 4.29  .05 .04  0.09 0.05  1 1  0.09 0.05  6.86 4.27  .009 .04  0.09  1  0.09  8.06  .005  0.11 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.11  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  0.11 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.11  5.30 6.16 5.41 7.32 3.78 4.27 8.11 4.20 5.42 4.31 4.28  .02 .01 .02 .007 .05 .04 .005 .04 .02 .04 .04  (Exophoric to Anaphoric Proportion) a) Total items 1 through 24 below 1. 13 situation 170.09 2. 14 group 17.42 3. 15 sex 16.90 4. 16 covariates 5. 17 above with age 58.00 6. 18 (situation x group) 39.89 7. 19 (situation x sex) 1.03 8. 20 9. 21 (group x sex) 28.58 10. 22 11. 23 (situation x 12. 24 group x sex) 89.15 Summary of significance of above proportion for individual items 1 to 24 above 1 sex (group x sex) 3 (situation x group sex with age) 4 group (situation x sex x group) 5 (situation x sex x group with age) 6 situation group (situation x group) 8 (situation x sex) 10 (situation x group) 17 situation group 19 situation 23 situation 24 sex  Significance of F  df  s i g n i f i c a n t . F o r the NNS E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n , there was a s i g n i f i c a n t exophoric to anaphoric e f f e c t : NNS c h i l d r e n ' s p r o p o r t i o n o f exophoric to anaphoric r e f e r e n c e items was g r e a t e r i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s over teacher organized s i t u a t i o n s than was the p r o p o r t i o n of exophoric to  anaphoric items f o r NS c h i l d r e n , F = J.Q9, p < . 0 5 .  In a d d i t i o n , a three way i n t e r a c t i o n  ( s i t u a t i o n x group x  sex) proved s i g n i f i c a n t , F = 8.68, p<.004. F u r t h e r s c r u t i n y of  the data r e v e a l e d that t h i s c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d to the NNS  c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s : NNS boys had a g r e a t e r r a t i o of exophoric to anaphoric r e f e r e n c e items i n teacher organized s i t u a t i o n s (more boys scored more i t e m s ) , whereas the NNS g i r l s recorded a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of exophoric to anaphoric r e f e r e n c e items i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s  (more g i r l s  scored more i t e m s ) . T h i s was not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r f o r the NS E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n , • b o y s and g i r l s scored e q u a l l y i n the two s i t u a t i o n s . The  s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r each of the s p e c i f i c  r e f e r e n c e items, one through twenty-four, are presented below under three headings: exophoric  exophoric to anaphoric p r o p o r t i o n ,  (not anaphoric) items and anaphoric  (not exophoric)  items. Each s i g n i f i c a n t r e f e r e n c e item i s numbered under these three headings  and the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s are  b r i e f l y r e p o r t e d . These a r e :  83  Exophoric The  to Anaphoric significance  Proportion o f the r e l a t i v e  to anaphoric  items  twenty-four,  i s illustrated  significance  f o r the f o l l o w i n g  Item  3 -  f o r each i n d i v i d u a l i n table  item,  nine.  one  through  The r e s u l t s  show  items:  "my"  a) v a r i e d x group  proportion of exophoric  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with  the c o v a r i a t e s - s i t u a t i o n  (NS, NNS) x s e x , F = 6.86, p < . 0 1 . The f r e q u e n c y o f  exophoric  to anaphoric  organized  than  r e f e r e n c e items  was g r e a t e r i n c h i l d  teacher organized situations,  NSs u s e d  more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n NNSs and m a l e s r e l a t i v e l y frequently  than females.  more  I n g e n e r a l , males used  teacher organized situations  and  females  "my"  more i t e m s i n  i n child  organized  situations. b) v a r i e d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h t h e c o v a r i a t e s and  = 6.86, p - c . O l . The use o f b o t h  exophoric  i n c r e a s e d w i t h age f o r b o t h m a l e s and and  NNSs a c r o s s b o t h  situations  age, F  and a n a p h o r i c  females,  items  and f o r NSs  - t e a c h e r as w e l l as c h i l d  organized. c) v a r i e d 4.29,  p<.04.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with group The r e l a t i v e  p r o p o r t i o n o f "my"  was g e n e r a l l y more a n a p h o r i c t h a n females,  (NS, NNS) by s e x , F =  and f o r b o t h NS m a l e s and  f o r NNS  the frequency females.  f o r NNS  males  84  Item 4 - "we" a)  varied  p<.04. more  significantly  exophoric f o r NSs, neither  b)  varied  organized) NS m a l e s items  ( N S , N N S ) , F = 4.27,  to anaphoric  i t e m s was  N S s n o r NNSs o f E n g l i s h  used  items. significantly  situation  (teacher,  ( N S , N N S ) x s e x , F = 8.06,  x group  had a g r e a t e r  i n child  with  p<.005.  proportion of exophoric  organized  situations  than  child  to  either  anaphoric  NNS m a l e s  ( N S , NNS) f e m a l e s . 5 - "you"  Item a)  varied  significantly  group x s e x , F = 5'30, instances items  of this  was g r e a t e r  organized  b)  of this  situations.  groups teacher  older  no  anaphoric  the frequency  of exophoric  situations  f o r males  than  with  than  for  a g e , F = 5.30,  item increases  with  i n teacher  females,  slightly  situations.  p<.02.  age f o r a l l groups  t h e N N S s who u s e d  the NSs, and both males  ( N S , NNS)were organized  were  situation x  NNSs i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s .  In addition, than  the covariates,  organized  greater  significantly  The f r e q u e n c y  slightly  Overall  i n child  f o r NSs than  varied  with  p <.02. There  item.  situations,  and g r e a t e r  all  group  The p r o p o r t i o n o f e x o p h o r i c  any a n a p h o r i c  or  with  older  the item  and females  i n child  organized  i n  were across over  85  Item 6 - "your" a) varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y with s i t u a t i o n by group, F = 7.32, p ^ . 0 1 . NNSs used this item more frequently than NSs i n c h i l d organized situations over teacher organized situations. There were no examples of "your" i n teacher organized situations by NS or NNS c h i l d r e n , and no anaphoric examples i n either situation. Item 10 - "she" a) varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y with s i t u a t i o n by group, F = 4.27, p <.04.  This item was used more frequently by NSs i n teacher  organized s i t u a t i o n s .  There were no anaphoric instances i n any  situation. Item 17 - "this" a) varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y with s i t u a t i o n , F = 8 . 1 1 , p < . 0 0 5 « A l l examples of this item were exophoric. The use of exophoric examples was far greater i n c h i l d organized situations than i t was i n teacher organized  situations.  b) varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y with group, F = 4.20,  p<.04.  NS and NNS children used this item equally i n teacher organized situations  (not at a l l ) , and there were far more examples of  use i n c h i l d organized situations.  In addition, the use of  the item by NNS children i n c h i l d organized situations was greater than the use by NS children i n situations.  c h i l d organized  86  Item 23 - "then" a) v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with s i t u a t i o n , F = p<.04.  4.31,  There were more i n s t a n c e s of exophoric r e f e r e n c e  items i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s than there were i n teacher organized s i t u a t i o n s . None of the examples that were recorded f o r r e f e r e n c e item "then" were anaphoric examples. Item 24 - "the" a) v a r i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with sex, F = 4.28, T h i s r e f e r e n c e item was  p<  .04.  used most f r e q u e n t l y by males  across a l l s i t u a t i o n s and groups - the item was  used  more f r e q u e n t l y i n exophoric r e f e r e n c e i n c h i l d  organized  s i t u a t i o n s and i n anaphoric r e f e r e n c e i n teacher organized situations. The remaining items, not l i s t e d above as  significant  i n the p r o p o r t i o n of exophoric to anaphoric r e f e r e n c e items, are shown on t a b l e n i n e . These items were e i t h e r e q u a l l y i n teacher and c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s and/or were r a r e l y used  i n e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n . In some cases, a  much l a r g e r sample may  yield a significant  result.  used  87  Exophoric  Items  Table items  t e n shows t h e r e l a t i v e  (not a n a p h o r i c  children's  reference  child  items  a) v a r i e d Exophoric  o r g a n i z e d . The  situations,  significant  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with used  exophoric  3  sex,  NS  and  t e a c h e r and  child  organized  NNS.  significantly  with  s i t u a t i o n x group x  w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g c o v a r i a t e s and were more e x o p h o r i c  organized  situations,  and  was  r e c o r d e d f o r t h e NNS  The  use  of  "my"  u s a g e and  this  Item 4  "we"  -  a) v a r i e d = 6.05,  by NS  p<.05.  "my"  a) v a r i e d  There  F = 4.06,  most f r e q u e n t l y by m a l e s r a t h e r  i n a l l situations,  a c r o s s a l l groups,  Item  F  o f t h e two  NNS  are:  " I " was  than females  and  i n each  exophoric  1 - "I"  Item  and  f r e q u e n c i e s ) f o r t h e NS,  interactions  t e a c h e r and  p r o p o r t i o n of  by NNS  in child  more f r e q u e n t use  of t h i s  c h i l d r e n and  Exophoric  males i n c h i l d  not  "we"  organized  t h e NS  pronominal  children.  more f r e q u e n t l y f e m a l e  of occurrence  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with  p-^.02.  > p<C«01.  i n s t a n c e s o f "my"  c h i l d r e n was  frequency  F = 7-31  age,  sex,  increased with  age.  s i t u a t i o n x group x  sex,  was  most f r e q u e n t l y u s e d  situations.  88  Table X P r o f i l e o f NS, NNS C h i l d r e n ' s Input and I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s of E x o p h o r i c Items with S i t u a t i o n  Variables: Exophoric Items a)  b)  Sources of variation  Total items 1 through 24 below (See Table IX) situation group sex covariates with age (situation x group) (situation x sex) (group x sex) (situation x group x sex)  SS  df  MS  F  Significance of F  2.95 0.01 0.08 0.59 0.00 0.53 0.04  1 1 1 1 1 1 1  2.95 0.01 0.08 0.59 0.00 0.53 0.04  15.68 0.01 0.43 3.13 0.01 2.80 0.23  .001 ns ns ns ns ns ns  0.24  1  0.24  1.30  ns  0.34 0.05  4.06 3.82  .05 .05  0.09 0.05  7.31 5.28  .01 .02  0.06  6.05  .02  0.11 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.001 0.16 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.00  5.39 7.98 7.67 6.91 3.79 8.46 3.94 5.42 9.07 4.31  .02 .005 .006 .009 .05 .004 .05 .02 .003 .04  Summary of significance of exophoric items 1 to 24 1 sex 0.34 1 3 (group x sex) 0.05 1 (situation x group x sex with age) 0.09 1 4 sex 0.05 1 (situation x group x sex) 0.06 1 5 (situation x group x sex with age) 0.11 1 6 situation 0.05 1 group 0.05 1 (situation x group) 0.04 1 11 group 0.001 1 17 situation 0.16 1 group 0.07 1 19 situation 0.01 1 22 situation 0.07 1 23 situation 0.00 1  89  Item a)  5 - "you" varied  and w i t h There  the  were  organized  children,  a)  6 -  more  child  organized  Item  11 -  Item a)  u s e was more item also  child  frequently increased  made  for a l l  age.  with  of this  situations. than  s i t u a t i o n x group,  i t e m were  used  F =  6.91,  exophorically i n  A n d , NS c h i l d r e n u s e d  this  item  NNS c h i l d r e n .  significantly  NS c h i l d r e n u s e d  with  more  group  (NS, NNS), F =  exophoric  instances  3.79,  of "her"  situations.  17 -  "this"  varied  "This"  significantly  was u s e d  frequently b)  of "you" i n  <.02.  "her"  varied  a l l  with  significantly  A l l examples  p <.05»  a n d a g e , F = 5•39» p  instances  and t h i s  x sex  "your"  frequently  in  exophoric  NSs and NNSs,  more  a)  s i t u a t i o n x group  c h i l d r e n . Use o f t h i s  varied  p <.01.  with  foregoing covariates  situations,  b y NS m a l e  Item  significantly  in child  varied  Although organized  only  with  situation,  e x o p h o r i c a l l y by the  organized  significantly  p<.004.  c h i l d r e n , a n d more  situations.  with  F = 3.94,  group,  NS a n d NNS c h i l d r e n u s e d situations,  F = 8.46,  "this"  the use o f " t h i s "  NNS c h i l d r e n o v e r NS c h i l d r e n i n c h i l d  p<.05.  equally i n  teacher  was f a r g r e a t e r organized  for  situations.  Item  19 -"now"  a) v a r i e d p<.02.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with situation,  M o s t i n s t a n c e s o f "now" o c c u r r e d  organized  situations f o ra l l children.  F = 5-^2, i n child  In addition,  "now" was u s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y more b y NNS c h i l d r e n b u t not  enough t o p r o v e s i g n i f i c a n t ( a l a r g e r  yield  a significant finding  I t e m 22 -  s a m p l e may  here).  "that"  a) v a r i e d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with situation, F =  9.07,  p <.003. T h e r e w e r e f a r more i n s t a n c e s o f e x o p h o r i c "that"  i n c h i l d over teacher  organized  situations.  Other r e f e r e n c e items, not r e p o r t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y exophoric  f o r some s p e c i f i c f a c t o r among t h e f o r e g o i n g  i t e m s , were e i t h e r m a i n l y infrequent  anaphoric,  to y i e l d significant findings,  used s i m i l a r l y f o r the f a c t o r s see  a n d / o r were t o o  table ten.  a n d / o r were  under study i n t h i s  report,  Anaphoric  Items  Table anaphoric  eleven  interactions  and c h i l d  interactions.  proportion of  i n each  organized,  items  f o r the  o f t h e two  situations,  f o r NS a n d NNS c h i l d r e n ' s  The s i g n i f i c a n t  items  are:  10 - " s h e "  Item  a) F  the r e l a t i v e  (not exophoric frequencies)  children's teacher  shows  varied  = 3-94,  found  significantly  p <.05« M o s t  i n teacher  organized  anaphoric  organized  situations,  with  situation x instances  situations  and were  used  group,  o f " s h e " were  rather  than  in  child  b y NS c h i l d r e n a n d n o t  b y NNS c h i l d r e n . 12 - " i t "  Item  a)  varied  p<.001. the  Although  with  the o v e r a l l  there  situations  were  more  f o r both  anaphoric  organized rather  All  reference  either  mainly exophoric,  significant various  findings,  factors  under  i n both  F = 10.62,  of occurrence teacher  and  of child  NS a n d f o r NNS c h i l d r e n ,  instances  teacher  other  situation,  frequency  p r o n o m i n a l " i t " was s i m i l a r  organized  in  significantly  than  o f the reference  child  organized  situations.  items,  not discussed  above  and/or  too infrequent  to  and/or  used  study  here.  equally across  item  were  yield the  92  T a b l e XI P r o f i l e o f NS NNS C h i l d r e n ' s Input and I n t e r a c t i o n : R e l a t i v e F r e q u e n c i e s of Anaphoric Items with S i t u a t i o n f  Variables: Anaphoric Items a)  b)  Sources of variation  Total items 1 through 24 below (See Table IX) situation group sex covariates with age (situation x group) (situation x sex) (group x sex) (situation x group x sex)  SS  df  MS  F  Significance of F  1.19 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02  1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1.19 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02  15.68 0.53 0.51 0.002 0.20 0.05 0.26  .001 ns ns ns ns ns ns  0.09  1  0.09  1.17  ns  Summary of significance of anaphoric items 1 to 24 4 situation 0.003 1 (situation x group) 0.003 1 10 (situation x group) 0.006 1 12 situation 0.27 1  0.003 0.003 0.006 0.27  4.06 3.82 3.94 10.62  .05 .05 .05 .001  3.3 D i s c u s s i o n The figures  r e s u l t s presented  i n t h e p r e c e d i n g t a b l e s and  o f f e r some p r e l i m i n a r y a n s w e r s t o t h e r e s e a r c h  q u e s t i o n s . These r e s u l t s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n i n terms o f these  r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , f o r both  experiments,  I and I I . A. O u t p u t o r V e r b a l  Participation  E x p e r i m e n t I s o u g h t a n a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n : To v/hat e x t e n t , i f a n y , d o e s NS t e a c h e r o u t p u t  or verbal  p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary with the s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e (teacher, organized, c h i l d organized)  of interactions?  The d a t a  from  t h i s s t u d y shows t h a t NS t e a c h e r o u t p u t / v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s c l a s s r o o m w i t h t h i s t e a c h e r i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e s i t u a t i o n a l structure of interactions,  verbal participation  ( u t t e r a n c e s , words) v a r i e s w i t h s i t u a t i o n . In terms o f u t t e r a n c e s , o r the t o t a l t u r n s per speaker, t h i s teacher dominated the t a l k i n teacher  organized  s i t u a t i o n s , y e t s p o k e f a r l e s s when s p o n t a n e o u s l y in situations  o r g a n i z e d b y t h e NS/NNS c h i l d r e n .  interacting  I n terms o f  t h e number o f w o r d s u s e d b y t h e t e a c h e r , she u s e d f a r more words i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s organized  t h a n she d i d i n c h i l d  s i t u a t i o n s ; however, t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e use o f  words t o u t t e r a n c e s d i d n o t v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y whether t h i s t e a c h e r was i n t e r a c t i n g i n s i t u a t i o n s situations  the children  themselves  she o r g a n i z e d , o r i n  organized.  94  The r e s u l t s verbal  indicate  participation  generally  held notions  much i n t e a c h e r conversation latter,  important  rather  for  the  to  i n the  c h i l d r e n to a  two  This  i n the  that  (teacher  generally  class),  while  the  their  groups  spontaneously,  hence  groups  child for  organized  the  teacher  organized In the  The vary and  groups to  addition  verbal  the at  NS/NNS will.  dominate  to  the  participation (teacher  a qualitative fact  as  and/or  of  for  an  important and  children  was  the  child  were  factor  taught  smaller.  Also,  and  p r o b a b l y more  conversation  in  organized  c h i l d r e n entered  It  the  language,  i n the  left difficult  child  situations.  situations also  well  The  particularly  organized  (whole  as  too  talk.  organized,  groups  teacher  is  v/ith  the  participation  large  the  the  language.  g r o u p i n g may b e  teacher  talk  c h i l d r e n to talk,  in  consistent  teachers  second  verbal  situations  is  dominating  the  i n using a f i r s t  suggests  consider.  situations, getting  difference  that  teachers:  children learning  skills  organized)  teacher  about  than  The d i f f e r e n c e teacher  this  organized  encouraging  building  of  a quantitative  that  the  of  this  organized, difference  proportion  significantly for in child  quantitative  organized  this  differences  teacher  child  organized),  indicated of words  teacher  situations  i n the  to  by the  found two there  suggests  that:  is  results.  utterances  i n teacher  in  did  not  organized 1)  either  95  t h i s t e a c h e r was n o t a d j u s t i n g t h e u t t e r a n c e  length to  accommodate i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h NS/NNS c h i l d r e n i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s , and/or 2) t e a c h e r i s associated with longer Though t h e s e  talk during informal interaction  utterances.  suggestions  are tentative, further research  on t h e number a n d l e n g t h o f u t t e r a n c e s  i ndifferent  situations  may p r o v e v a l u a b l e . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f t h e f o r m e r i s t r u e , i n t h i s s t u d y t h i s t e a c h e r was n o t a d j u s t i n g t h e l e n g t h o f h e r u t t e r a n c e s t o accommodate i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h NS/NS c h i l d r e n i n different (i.e.,  situations,  Do t e a c h e r s  then teacher  t r a i n i n g may n e e d  improving  accommodate L 2 l e a r n e r s b y a d j u s t i n g t h e  l e n g t h o f t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s a s L I m o t h e r s do t o accommodate c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g t h e i r native languages?) I n f a c t , t e a c h e r h a d some, b u t l i m i t e d L 2 t r a i n i n g . the l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y ,  i f teacher  this  I n t h e case o f  talk i sassociated with  longer utterances during i n f o r m a l i n t e r a c t i o n , then  there  may be a n e e d t o a l t e r t e a c h i n g m e t h o d o l o g y t o g i v e  teachers  the  s k i l l s needed t o s t i m u l a t e i n f o r m a l , s m a l l group  i n t e r a c t i o n - a g a i n , t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g may be i n f l u e n c e d b y research of this sort ( i . e . ,  I s the q u a l i t y of teacher  conversation better i n informal interactions with children than i n f o r m a l l y organized  teaching sessions?). I n fact,  t e a c h e r d i d a p p e a r t o have b e t t e r q u a l i t y c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h e NS/NNS c h i l d  organized  this during  s i t u a t i o n s than i n  96  teacher organized  situations.  I t may h a v e b e e n more  f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o speak i n spontaneous s i t u a t i o n s by t h e c h i l d r e n  themselves,  longer i n these  natural organized  hence t e a c h e r u t t e r a n c e s were  situations.  E x p e r i m e n t I I s o u g h t a n a n s w e r t o t h e same q u e s t i o n , b u t h e r e t h e e m p h a s i s was on NS, NNS c h i l d  interaction:  what e x t e n t , i f a n y , d o e s NS, NNS c h i l d r e n ' s  output/verbal  p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary with the s i t u a t i o n a l structure organized, c h i l d The children's  organized)  of  of i n t e r a c t i o n s .  (teacher  interactions?  data from t h i s study suggests output  To  t h a t NS, NNS  does v a r y w i t h t h e s i t u a t i o n a l The NS, NNS c h i l d r e n  structure  were f a r more  verbal,  b o t h i n t h e q u a n t i t y o f u t t e r a n c e s used and i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f words t o u t t e r a n c e s i n t h e c h i l d t h e y were i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d preceding discussion  organized s i t u a t i o n s ,  situations.  o f experiment  dominated the c o n v e r s a t i o n i n c h i l d NS, NNS c h i l d r e n  they also  much l o n g e r w h i l e s p o n t a n e o u s l y  Although  situations,  dominated the c h i l d r e n  organized situations.  The  n o t o n l y u s e d more u t t e r a n c e s i n c h i l d  organized s i t u a t i o n s ,  they themselves  Whereas i n t h e  I , the teacher  the c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d  than  u s e d u t t e r a n c e s t h a t were interacting  i n situations  c r e a t e d and o r g a n i z e d .  t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f b o t h NS a n d NNS  increased substantially significant relationship  i n child  organized  children  situations,  a  between t h e v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f  97  NS v e r s u s  NNS c h i l d r e n d i d n o t  NS u t t e r a n c e s words  to  organized  this  the  c l a s s r o o m the  of  range  greatly  must  i n teacher  At f i r s t  learners  are  proficiency  also  The d a t a differences  The E n g l i s h  with  early  teacher  children.  that  well age  as  the  for  both  development children greatly better  NS a n d f o r and/or  may b e  quantity  in this  to  may b e  at  linguistic  that  in to  LI  greatly  were  and f o r  in  sex  situations.  and words used of  utterances  utterances  suggests -  by  the  as  increased  important  any age  with  that  a l t h o u g h NNS  a n d NS c h i l d r e n m a y v a r y  a b i l i t i e s , a l l c h i l d r e n become  with  p r o p o r t i o n of words  NNS m a l e s  balanced  children.  organized  utterances  the  practice  conversationalists  the  differences  NNS c h i l d r e n . T h i s  beginners  in their  however,  appeared  L2  a n d may r a n g e  in child  p r o p o r t i o n o f words  Sex d i f f e r e n c e s for  age  and  i n both  appeared  well  age  not  appear  LI learners  this  of  child  more),  English  of  years.  Age p r o v e d s i g n i f i c a n t It  may  fairly  d i d the  children of  was a n a l y z e d f o r  i n both  this  c h i l d r e n appeared  l e a r n i n g language  i n the  proportion  organized versus  glance,  i n p r o f i c i e n c y as  remembered  the  proportion  NS c h i l d r e n s h o u l d t a l k  language.ability.  be  and  the  b o t h NS a n d NNS c h i l d r e n w a s  different  (i.e.,  terms  It  for  situations.  surprising in  a n d NNS u t t e r a n c e s ,  utterances  significantly  emerge;  age.  also to  found  for  utterances.  c l a s s r o o m were  more  both  utterances  In general,  verbal  than  and  NS a n d  NS/NNS  girls.  98  In  t h e case  effect,  o f u t t e r a n c e s , s e x was s i g n i f i c a n t a s a m a i n  i n d i c a t i n g m a l e s were more v e r b a l t h a n f e m a l e s . I n  a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was a t h r e e way i n t e r a c t i o n among (teacher organized, c h i l d  o r g a n i z e d ) , g r o u p (NS, NNS) a n d  sex, i n d i c a t i n g f u r t h e r t h a t i n t h i s speaking  (LI)  situation  classroom  the E n g l i s h  m a l e s were more v e r b a l t h a n t h e E n g l i s h  speaking females  i n child  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . These s e x  d i f f e r e n c e s may be due t o p e r s o n a l i t y a n d / o r m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , a n d may p r o v e a u s e f u l p u r s u i t f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h ( i . e . , A r e m a l e s more a c t i v e l a n g u a g e u s e r s t h a n are?). In this situation,  females  i t a p p e a r e d t h a t t h e male  children,  b o t h NS a n d NNS m a l e s , were more g r e g a r i o u s a n d o u t g o i n g than the female and  c h i l d r e n . T h i s may be a n i n d i c a t i o n o f s o c i a l  c u l t u r a l values  outgoing than In  (parental)i  Are males expected  t o be more  girls?  terms o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f words t o u t t e r a n c e s , s e x  was a l s o a m a i n e f f e c t due t o t h e i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e b o y s . H e r e , h o w e v e r , t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t way i n t e r a c t i o n . T h i s s u g g e s t s  that i n t h i s classroom the  p r o p o r t i o n o f words t o u t t e r a n c e s  ( u t t e r a n c e l e n g t h ) was  g r e a t e r f o r males i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s organized)  two o r t h r e e  (teacher organized,  f o r b o t h g r o u p s (NS, NNS) t h a n f o r f e m a l e s  child  - NS  m a l e s d i d n o t d o m i n a t e d i s c u s s i o n i n a n y s i t u a t i o n w i t h NS females  as i n t h e case  o f u t t e r a n c e s mentioned above.  Again,  t h i s may w i t h a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h p r o v e t o be a c u l t u r a l Are males r e a r e d d i f f e r e n t l y from females  (i.e.,  across cultures?)  99  and/or a s o c i a l  ( i . e . sexism - are g i r l s g e n e r a l l y  t o be more s h y a n d q u i e t ? ) sex  expected  f a c t o r . A d d i t i o n a l research  on  d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n a n d a c r o s s c u l t u r e s i s recommended i n  terms o f the c h i l d r e n ' s v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r output i n various  situations.  I n summary, v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r o u t p u t v a r i e s s i t u a t i o n a n d i t a p p e a r s t o be t h e s t r u c t u r e s i t u a t i o n that verbal  i s r e l a t e d to output. This  i n s i t u a t i o n s she o r g a n i z e d  they organized  t h e y were i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d  appears that fostered while the  t e a c h e r was more  the c h i l d r e n i n s i t u a t i o n s  a n d l e d . The c h i l d r e n on t h e o t h e r h a n d  w e r e more v e r b a l l y a c t i v e i n c h i l d  f o r both native  of the  a n d l e d t h a n she was  when s p o n t a n e o u s l y i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h that  organized  s i t u a t i o n s than  s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s was  true  and n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h . I t  the structure  of child  organized  situations  the v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the c h i l d  the structure  of teacher organized  learners  situations inhibited  c h i l d r e n s ' v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , f o r both f i r s t  l a n g u a g e l e a r n e r s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t s h o u l d be g i v e n  with  to s i t u a t i o n a l structure  and second  greater  i n examining  attention classroom  i n t e r a c t i o n s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n S a v i l l e - T r o i k e ' s (1984:21?) study the  c h i l d r e n who were u n s u c c e s s f u l  t h o s e most s u c c e s s f u l a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l  academically  were  communication. I n t h i s  s t u d y a l l c h i l d r e n were more s u c c e s s f u l a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication i n c h i l d  organized  situations.  100  B.  Input  and  The teacher  Interaction: Discourse  r e s u l t s of the data a n a l y s i s f o r experiment I , i n p u t and  interaction:  discourse features,  some p r e l i m i n a r y a n s w e r s t o t h e concerning NS  Features  the  teacher's  teacher:  use  second r e s e a r c h  To what e x t e n t ,  of d i s c o u r s e  i f any,  give  question does  features vary with  the  the  situation? This teacher's classroom use  of discourse  features i n this  does i n f a c t v a r y w i t h s i t u a t i o n :  of features  organized The  use  ( t o t a l i t e m s ) was  of occurrence  organized  for discourse  with verbal p a r t i c i p a t i o n - t h i s teacher verbal i n teacher organized  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . The  individual discourse  be  items  teachers'  verbal  use  important  organized  use  of  verbal  features  participation.  question:  To what  extent  features increase  with  participation?  f o r some i t e m s  may  t h a t the  increased frequency  of  i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y a r e more  i n some s i t u a t i o n s / a c t i v i t i e s t h a n i n o t h e r s .  instance, i n t h i s classroom (percentage  a l s o f a r more  of discourse  of discourse  I n a d d i t i o n , i t m i g h t be occurrence  increase  appears to increase w i t h  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might address the teachers'  may  fact that t h i s teacher's  r e l a t e d t o t h e amount o f v e r b a l  does the  situations.  items was  teacher  s i t u a t i o n s than i n c h i l d  p a r t i c i p a t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e use may  overall  f a r greater i n  s i t u a t i o n s than i n c h i l d  frequency  the  the  teacher's  of grand t o t a l ) of items  was  overall  use  greater i n  s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t : 1)  For  teacher  t h i s teacher  may  101  use  more  items  in  "teaching"  Future  in child  organized  Although teacher  used  and i n c h i l d  that is  the  teacher the  discourse  This  order  (see, same  generally  are  various  was  classrooms  was g r e a t e r  in  specific  situations,  were  of  that  to  features  for  child this  no  matter  or  child  for  this  characteristic  2) these  help  fact  and  teacher  are  tables  by the  important  in,  teachers'  will  three,  discourse  explanations  features  teacher teacher  teacher  suggests  and/or  of  frequently figure  in  use  substantiated  This  issues.  This  interacting  discourse  these  situation.  (see,  of  two p o s s i b l e  discourse  features  speech.  Additional  clarify  this  behaviour. in this  a possibility. features  questions  as  features  characteristic  Observations may b e  two  i n general,  i n other  teacher's  use  three).  she  1) t h e s e  speech  the  with  items.  proportionate  somewhat  discourse  behaviour:  research  the  fewer  items  vary with  the  table  There  are  for  of  deal  of  features  is  of  situation  adult  use  situations,  organized.  of  use  specifically  teacher's  i n each  the  the  organized situations  rank  organized  with  d i d not  and f o u r ) .  similar  what  the  features  specific  three  might  organized  specific  and/or  associated  studies  in  interaction  teacher's  is  uses  interaction  such  situations  she  informal  situations,  this  than  2)  non-teaching as  situations  and  (see,  classroom suggest  For example, table  "wh" q u e s t i o n s  the  three) as  most  that  the  r a n k e d means  lists  features  important  to  latter for  the  "yes/no" this  102  teacher i n both  s i t u a t i o n s , t e a c h e r and c h i l d  organized.  L o n g ( 1 9 8 1 ) , B r u l h a r t ( 1 9 8 5 ) , P e c k (1985) a n d o t h e r s ,  list  " y e s / n o " a n d "wh" q u e s t i o n s a s means o f s e e k i n g p r e s p e c i f i e d answers and/or as i n s i n c e r e r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n i n light  o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a n s w e r s a r e a l r e a d y known t o t h e  teacher. This teacher's use o f these  questions i n a l l  s i t u a t i o n s seemed t o do one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g j a ) i n i t i a t e / c o n t i n u e d i s c u s s i o n ( e . g . "Who's t h i s , o r "Are t h e r e nurses  do y o u t h i n k ? "  i n t h e h o s p i t a l ? " ) , b) s i g n a l a  t u r n f o r t h e NS, NNS c h i l d r e n  speaking  ( e . g . "What d o e s y o u r mom d o ,  Gerry?"  o r "Who do y o u want t o b e ? " ) , c ) make a n i n s i n c e r e  request  f o r i n f o r m a t i o n ( e . g . "Today i s Monday. What d a y i s  it and  today?"  o r " I t ' s c l e a n up t i m e . A r e y o u r  cleaning up?"),  d ) a c q u i r e / m a i n t a i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a t t e n t i o n ( e . g . What  a r e y o u d o i n g now? o r A r e y o u l o o k i n g up h e r e , S t e f a n i e ? " ) . In t h i s classroom  t h e t e a c h e r ' s u s e o f " y e s / n o " a n d "wh"  q u e s t i o n s a p p e a r s t o be a t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e , f e a t u r e s seemed t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c speech (though  t h e usefulness o f these  i s q u e s t i o n a b l e , see, Long A l s o , as noted participation,  of this  these  discourse  teacher's  features f o r teaching  I98I).  previously i nthe discussion of verbal  t h i s t e a c h e r does n o t appear t o a d j u s t t h e  l e n g t h o f u t t e r a n c e s t o accommodate t h e s i t u a t i o n .  In like  manner, t h i s t e a c h e r a p p e a r s t o u s e t h e same d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s , i n d i c a t i n g that adjustments t o accommodate t h e s i t u a t i o n a r e p r o b a b l y n o t b e i n g made.  103  Both these  f i n d i n g s may i n d i c a t e  t r a i n i n g and/or experience  insufficient  teacher  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m w i t h L2 l e a r n e r s .  The i n c r e a s e d ( p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y ) u s e o f " o t h e r  repetitions"  ( s e e , t a b l e f o u r , p. 62) i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d  situations  somewhat s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h i s - t h i s t e a c h e r o f t e n r e p e a t e d  what  t h e NS/NNS c h i l d r e n s a i d , n o t a s a means o f r e i n f o r c i n g t h e word i n E n g l i s h t o f a c i l i t a t e  the c h i l d r e n ' s understanding,  r a t h e r t o h e l p c l a r i f y t h e t e a c h e r ' s own u n d e r s t a n d i n g it  o f what  was t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n s a i d . P e r h a p s t e a c h e r s n e e d t o be made  more aware o f what  i t i s t h a t t h e y a r e d o i n g i n p l a n n i n g and  implementing classroom  activities.  The d a t a f o r e x p e r i m e n t I I was a n a l y z e d  i n answer t o  t h e same r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n f o r t h e NS, NNS c h i l d r e n :  To  what e x t e n t , i f a n y , d o e s NS, NNS c h i l d r e n ' s u s e o f discourse features vary with the s i t u a t i o n  (teacher,  o r g a n i z e d ) ? The r e s u l t s o f t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s o f f e r p r e l i m i n a r y responses t o t h i s  child  some  question.  The c h i l d r e n ' s o v e r a l l u s e o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r f o r b o t h NS E n g l i s h a n d NNS i n c h i l d organized  s i t u a t i o n s than i n teacher  children  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . This i n d i c a t e s t h a t the use o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s by a l l c h i l d r e n  (NS, NNS) d o e s i n d e e d v a r y w i t h  situation,  one o r more i t e m s may be o f g r e a t e r / l e s s e r i m p o r t a n c e i n some s i t u a t i o n s a n d n o t i n o t h e r s . The more f r e q u e n t u s e o f discourse features i n child  organized  o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s may be a r e s u l t  s i t u a t i o n s over  teacher  of the increased verbal  104  p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f b o t h NS a n d NNS E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n child  organized  s i t u a t i o n s - t h e r e may h a v e b e e n more  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the c h i l d r e n t o produce these Or,  the a c t u a l i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n ,  and  informality i n child  more c o n d u c i v e organized  organized  t o t h e use o f these  the spontanteity  s i t u a t i o n s may  findings are  i t i s a combination  b o t h o f t h e f o r e g o i n g : a) t h e use o f a g r e a t e r of discourse items w i l l  prove  features than f o r m a l l y  " t e a c h i n g " s i t u a t i o n s . Though t h e s e  t e n t a t i v e , t h i s w r i t e r suspects  items.  frequency  appear i n c h i l d organized  b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d r e n f e e l more c o m f o r t a b l e  of  situations  speaking  i n their  p e e r g r o u p , a n d b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e more f r e q u e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s to  l e a r n a b o u t c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a n t h e y do i n t e a c h e r  organized  s i t u a t i o n s where t e a c h e r s t e n d t o d o m i n a t e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , and  b) i t i s t h e s p o n t a n e i t y o f c h i l d  the f l e x i b i l i t y  of the grouping  groups a t w i l l )  that lend themselves  o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s and  ( c h i l d r e n move i n a n d o u t o f to the children's  i n c r e a s e d use o f i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s . Age a n d s e x d i d n o t p r o v e s i g n i f i c a n t  factors i n the  c h i l d r e n ' s o v e r a l l use o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s }  however,  f u r t h e r s c r u t i n y o f t h e d a t a r e v e a l e d a t h r e e way amongst s i t u a t i o n ,  s e x and group. I n g e n e r a l , males produced  more d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s t h a n f e m a l e s s i t u a t i o n s w h i l e females features i n child  interaction  i n teacher  organized  p r o d u c e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  organized  s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s may be  105  attributed  to  aggressive  and/or  comfortable girls?), than  i n formally  girls?),  and/or  and/or  because  research  through  this  as  the  as  in  increased organized  all  (e.g. to  situations  than  Are  learn  girls  speak  forcefully  c o n c l u s i o n s are of  this  study,  cultures  discourse chapter  may  offered  additional  yield  features  two)  were  (one concerned  and v a r i e d i n t h e i r  use  b y NS  situations. confirmation checks,  organized  organized situations.  and  self-  "wh" q u e s t i o n s  situations This  participation verbally of  is  the  than  were  they  p r o b a b l y due children in  v/ere to  the  child  situations.  feature  situations,  did,  for  were  by f a r  NS a n d  teacher  NNS c h i l d r e n u s e d children  two  checks,  in child  more  researchers.  measures,  Self-repetitions discourse  L2  "you" i n d i r e c t i v e s  prevalent  teacher  focus  across  significant  Clarification  more  the  individual  see  more  therefore,  teaching  differences  was n o t  a n d NNS c h i l d r e n i n t h e  repetitions,  girls,  A l t h o u g h no f i r m  for  Are boys  A r e b o y s more m o t i v a t e d t o  differences  twelve,  few emerged  than  organized  sex  findings  As f a r  (e.g.  c u l t u r a l l y encouraged  on sex  significant  a  gregarious  formal groups?).  here  factors  motivation (e.g.  socially in  personality  therefore,  most  NNS c h i l d r e n ' s  and/or  t w i c e as  the  child  frequently  interactions  organized.  many s e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s  group  proved  used  In as  significant.  in  addition, NS The  106  great  use  related  of  to  a practice  which would second  self-repetitions  prove  language  learners  because  knowledge  from  language  are  themselves,  important  of  for  situations  are  were  L2 w h i l e  related  used  more  this  appears  children word  This older  as  that  oral  native  checks  related  to  (e.g.  their  easier  however,  by b o t h  these  c h i l d r e n , perhaps  wishes)  the  and/or  only  one  of  generally glance  i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h NNS  questions o f use  that of  may b e m o r e increased  these  of  feature  NS c h i l d r e n  consideration  because  organized  peers.  while  questions  taking into  most  own c o m p r e h e n s i o n  age  frequency  is  using  NNS c h i l d r e n . A t f i r s t  ask  because  their  It  for  proved  NS a n d NNS c h i l d r e n i n c r e a s e s  that  (e.g.  than  to  language  L2 l e a r n i n g : NNS  results,  a NS a d j u s t m e n t is  to  a  children  in child  questions.  questions  be it  "yes/no"  effect  language.  which  checking their  p r e v i o u s l y i n the age,  first  opportunities  comprehension  probably also  to  to  i n d i c a t e d by the  interacting with  indicates  feelings,  their  English.  "yes/no"  socializing  of  language)  l e a r n i n g and d e v e l o p i n g  NS a n d NNS o f  informally  answers),  questions  result  important  s t i l l  probably  NNS c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g  NNS c h i l d r e n i n t e r a c t i n g  As n o t e d was  are  important both  to  nonetheless  they  this  The u s e  the  important  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  apparent  children  (including play with  most  but  by a l l c h i l d r e n i s  require "yes/no"  with  age.  important  practice  at  another's  questions  one  are  used  to  107 f r e q u e n t l y by t h e teacher,  t h e r e f o r e learned by t h e  c h i l d r e n . The l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y may be s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y the i n c r e a s e d use o f "yes/no" q u e s t i o n s  w i t h age - o l d e r  l e a r n e r s a r e more c o n c e r n e d w i t h a d u l t b e h a v i o u r s a n d adopt t h e r u l e s and b e h a v i o u r s important w i t h whom t h e y The  i n t e r a c t (see, Garvey,  to the adults  1977)•  i n c r e a s e d use o f "you" i n d i r e c t i v e s i n c h i l d  organized  s i t u a t i o n s b y b o t h NS a n d NNS c h i l d r e n s u g g e s t s  that the c h i l d r e n f i n d i t e a s i e r t o use t h i s  feature  d u r i n g s p o n t a n e o u s i n t e r a c t i o n s , p e r h a p s due t o t h e g r e a t e r amount o f a c t i o n t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h i l d r e n ' s a c t i v i t y but n o t n e c e s s a r i l y w i t h t h e t e a c h e r ' s probably  organized checking  It i s  much e a s i e r t o d i r e c t y o u r age p e e r s i f t h e r e i s  continuous The  activities.  a c t i o n taking place increased  to facilitate  this  direction.  use o f " c o n f i r m a t i o n checks" i n c h i l d  s i t u a t i o n s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n may be one a n o t h e r ' s r e s p o n s e s t o c o n f i r m  that they a r e  b o t h h e a r d a n d u n d e r s t o o d . T h i s may o r may n o t be r e l a t e d t o the  language d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s classroom,  NS v e r s u s NNS,  a n d / o r i t may be a n a d j u s t m e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c speech i n g e n e r a l  of children's  ( s e e , C l a r k , 1977)• A d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h  will  clarify this finding. I n sum, t h e u s e o f d i s c o u r s e  f e a t u r e s , f r e q u e n t l y used  as a n assessment o f i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n , i s i n f l u e n c e d by the  s i t u a t i o n s taking place during t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n .  Before  108  the r e s u l t s of s t u d i e s of d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s can come to any f i r m c o n c l u s i o n s , they must compare/contrast use of these f e a t u r e s a c r o s s may d i f f e r e n t with d i f f e r e n t  the  situations  groups.  For i n s t a n c e , Long (1981:150) found questions were more widely used i n FTD than i n NS-NS i n t e r a c t i o n . In t h i s study, q u e s t i o n s were: 1) more w i d e l y used by the teacher than the c h i l d r e n ,  2) more widely used by NNS c h i l d r e n i n  the c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s situations,  than i n teacher organized  3) used with some frequency by the NS  children  i n both teacher and i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s , and 4) used s l i g h t l y more by a l l c h i l d r e n i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s . S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s were more important  to and  more w i d e l y used by the NNS c h i l d r e n than were q u e s t i o n s , on the other hand, questions were f a r more widely used by the teacher than were r e p e t i t i o n s , and, the NS c h i l d r e n used more questions than r e p e t i t i o n s L i k e Long and Sato  i n a l l situations.  (1983:208) who found out that q u e s t i o n s  d i f f e r e d i n f u n c t i o n i n and out of the classroom, seemed to serve d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n t h i s  questions  classroom.  The teacher's q u e s t i o n s were aimed a t having l e a r n e r s g i v e prespecified  answers - b i t s of i n f o r m a t i o n (e.g. What c o l o u r  i s t h i s ? , What's the weather l i k e today?) while the l e a r n e r s (NS and NNS) used questions to understand  each o t h e r s ' a c t i o n s  (e.g. Why are you doing t h a t ? , What are we gonna do with i t ? ) .  109 Like  repetitions case  (1985»)  Peck are  the  by a l l groups,  consistent  with  developmental repair  their  in this  teacher,  N S , NNS c h i l d r e n . T h i s  is  that  for  own s p e e c h  children in this  repetitions used  as  questions Look  (e.g.  of  that  learners  What's  an  to  functioned  however, way.  the  today?  in  this  is  early  practice  l e a r n i n g language for  and  (see,  Clark,  practice  for  teacher  used  self-  Self-repetitions  were  often  a c h i l d ' s non-response  a d d i t i o n to  items  the  What's  to  today?,  the  teacher's  Look  a n a l y z e d as  foregoing differences discourse  be w o r t h s t u d y i n g b e c a u s e 2)  situation, and/or sources  3)  not  important  useful  were  work  thirteen  of  they  only  for  not  outside.  -  widely  at  questions  may i n d i c a t e  increased  i n use  discourse  features  not  used  times  i n any  not  i n other  in  she  studied.  for  any  development,  questionable  the  study  lack  situations  ranked  in  s i t u a t i o n and were  for  a developmental age  J 1)  therefore,  Some s u p p o r t  that  situation,  important  certain  corrections  features  with  are  may  with  For instance, i n this  corrections  (1985)  features  teaching,  study.  i n any group.  significance Peck's  important  of research  corrections  the  features,  outside.). In  some  study;  i n a different  a result  suggest  child  while  used  and  v/idely  1978). S e l f - r e p e t i t i o n s l i k e l y the  questions  two most  LI studies  trend  study  near  the  The use trend  of  is  found  bottom of  i n that  a l l c h i l d r e n . And, the  by c h i l d r e n because  they  hear  not  in of  "yes/no" they use  their  of teacher  110  u s i n g them, a l t h o u g h Gaies,  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r work ( s e e ,  1983:207/208) a n d / o r t h e u s e o f s p e c i f i c  features  t h a t r e q u i r e t h e l e a r n e r t o g i v e p r e s p e c i f i e d answers to questions  a r e poor teaching techniques,  i n L2 c l a s s r o o m  particularly  s i t u a t i o n s where i t i s i m p o r t a n t  that  c h i l d r e n t a l k a s they a r e l e a r n i n g and d e v e l o p i n g i n conversing Finally,  skills  i n t h e new l a n g u a g e .  t h i s study  indicates that greater attention  must he g i v e n t o t h e s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e use o f d i s c o u r s e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n these  f e a t u r e s by v a r i o u s  i n t e r a c t i o n s . The g r e a t  i n t h e use o f s p e c i f i c d i s c o u r s e  variation  f e a t u r e s w i t h i n and a c r o s s  s t u d i e s d e p e n d i n g upon t h e s p e c i f i c  i n t e r a c t a n t s and  s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v e d s u g g e s t s t h a t : 1) p e r h a p s l a r g e r s a m p l e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e t o what e x t e n t i s r e a l l y important,  any o f these  2) p e r h a p s more e x t e n s i v e  features  studies  c o m p a r i n g a n d c o n t r a s t i n g numerous d i f f e r e n t i n t e r a c t a n t s ' use  of discourse  needed t o c l a r i f y  features i n a v a r i e t y of situations are existing research,  to pay a t t e n t i o n t o other aspects the  o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i n examining  i n p u t a v a i l a b l e t o L2 l e a r n e r s . I n t h i s study t h e  structure of teacher not  a n d 3) p e r h a p s i t i s t i m e  and c h i l d  only the production  organized  situations influenced  of various discourse  forms and t h e i r  f u n c t i o n s b y a l l i n t e r a c t a n t s ( t e a c h e r , NS, NNS c h i l d r e n ) b u t a l s o t h e i n p u t a v a i l a b l e f o r comprehension and t h e nature o f the  i n t e r a c t i o n s t h r o u g h w h i c h L2 l e a r n i n g  occurred.  Ill  C.  Input  and  Interactions Situational  Exophoric/Anaphoric The  data  (Spatial/Temporal)  in this  answers to the  study helped  Reference  arrive  Experiment i f any,  some p r e l i m i n a r y concerning  (spatial/temporal) reference.  I sought  an answer t o t h e  does t h e  teacher's  (teacher organized,  child  questions  To  what  exophoric/anaphoric  (spatial/temporal) reference vary with structure  at  following research questions  exophoric/anaphoric  extent,  Structure -  the  situational  organized)  of  interactions? The  data from t h i s  study  shows t h a t  (spatial/temporal) reference i s indeed for this  teacher's  input during i n t e r a c t i o n with  children's this  in this  i n f l u e n c e d by  situation  teacher organized  teacher  s i t u a t i o n s was  immediate  experience  t e a c h e r u s e d more e x o p h o r i c  the  anaphoric  the  children i n - removed f r o m  i n s p a c e and items  Much o f  time.  overall,  the  relative  organized  situations.  In s i t u a t i o n s  t h a t the  organized  themselves,  however, t h i s  t e a c h e r ' s use  of  anaphoric  items  and  provided  i n t e r a c t i o n was  addition,  the  more i m m e d i a t e  frequency  g r e a t e r i n the  teacher  proportionately, ( r a t i o ) d i d not  the vary  f a r greater i n teacher  g r e a t l y reduced  of occurrence organized  use  the  and  concrete.  of a l l items  situations.  of exophoric  significantly  children  input  w i t h the  In was  And,  to anaphoric  the  Though  of anaphoric  during  was  classroom.  frequency  was  items  exophoric/anaphoric  items  situation.  112  These there  findings  may be  structure  generally Although  a difference,  of  activities.  suggest  teacher This  more  teacher  distant  used  some  interactions  with  the  this  often  events  associated  immediate for as  the  themselves  the of  the  teacher  teacher's  interactions  i n these  immediate  and  -  organized  situations  exophoric  items.  of  children's  the of  groups  materials used  to  nature use  o f movement  the of  the small  the  people),  o f more Next,  that  and  events  use  hand,  that  of both  the  the  v/as  input  greater  occur,  demands items  and  by the  the  more  in  child  percentage  of  nature  interaction, i n and  concreteness  closeness  was  children  spontaneous group  the  provided  situations  participants the  and  removed from  action taking place  exophoric reference the  but  other  a far  (things  the  people  things,  situations  activities,  the  to  space.  organized,  i n s u c h a way t h a t  the  and  she  i n these  and  interact of  appears  interactions,  flexibility the  It  during  situations  teacher's  contained  were  her  On t h e  the  that  c h i l d r e n . The i n p u t  situations  concrete  organized  materials  materials  anaphoric.  organized  child  situational  and  reference  c h i l d r e n by the  i n the  First,  c h i l d r e n i n time  children in  experiences  e x o p h o r i c as  the  concrete  with  of  things.  organized a c t i v i t i e s  from  made  of  i n general,  o r g a n i z e d and  she  teacher  a number  of -  the  of  out the  language  and the  encourages  dynamic the  teacher.  e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c  reference  113  items  seemed t o i n c r e a s e w i t h v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . o n e , p. 56)  t e a c h e r was more v e r b a l ( s e e f i g u r e organized  situations  situations.  Although  t h a n she was i n c h i l d  organized  may be r e l a t e d  v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the teacher i n these Does a n a p h o r i c  items  to increased  situations (e.g.  reference increase proportionately with verbal  participation?), the  i n teacher  t h e i n c r e a s e d use o f a n a p h o r i c  i n teacher organized situations  The  additional  results  suggest  that t h i s i s not  case.  The r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n o f e x o p h o r i c t e a c h e r and c h i l d o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s situation, indicating  that although  exophoric  items i n c h i l d organized  anaphoric  items  t o anaphoric does n o t v a r y  situations  a n d more  situations,  t h e t e a c h e r i s more v e r b a l i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d  i n t h e two s i t u a t i o n s . t h i s 1 1)  with  t h i s t e a c h e r u s e s more  i n teacher organized  the p r o p o r t i o n o f exophoric  items i n  to anaphoric  and  although  situations,  i t e m s does n o t v a r y  T h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r  t h e t e a c h e r was n o t a d j u s t i n g t h e d i s t a n c e o f h e r  s p e e c h f r o m t h e i n t e r a c t a n t s t o accommodate i n t e r a c t i o n the l e a r n e r i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s ,  a n d / o r 2)  "teacher t a l k " i s  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y t h e same i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s . across classrooms  Further  may h e l p t o c l a r i f y t h i s f i n d i n g .  t h a t t h i s t e a c h e r d i d n o t make a d j u s t m e n t s  that the former  i s a possibility.  research  The  fact  i n the length of  h e r u t t e r a n c e s t o accommodate d i f f e r e n c e i n t e r a c t i o n suggests  with  situations  114  Many p r e l i m i n a r y a n s w e r s t o t h e same q u e s t i o n were a r r i v e d interactions: children's  at i n a d d r e s s i n g i t to the c h i l d r e n ' s  t o what e x t e n t ,  i f a n y , does t h e NS,  exophoric/anaphoric  reference vary with NS and NNS  situation  this  study,  (teacher, c h i l d  indicating  factors  that play a role  exophoric  and a n a p h o r i c )  teacher organized  NS and NNS  situations, produce nature the  to anaphoric  of child  varies  i n child  situations.  The  significantly  organized  with  (both  situations  than  T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the  on v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n  c h i l d r e n were more v e r b a l i n c h i l d  In addition,  -  organized  organized  t h e s p o n t a n e o u s and dynamic  situations  children's verbal participation items  appears to encourage and t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f  i n general.  In g e n e r a l the c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t l y more e x o p h o r i c situations  research  t h e r e was, t h e r e f o r e , more o p p o r t u n i t y t o  items.  reference  consider  items  c h i l d r e n p r o d u c e more i t e m s  p r e v i o u s l y mentioned f i n d i n g both  situation  i n L2 t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g .  and d e m o n s t r a t i v e s )  - NS and NNS  in  s i t u a t i o n as important  proportion of exophoric  situation  vary with  t h a t L2 r e s e a r c h e r s s h o u l d  of the i n t e r a c t i o n  (pronominals  organized)?  English c h i l d r e n ' s exophoric/anaphoric  aspects  relative  NNS  (spatial/temporal)  ( s p a t i a l / t e m p o r a l ) r e f e r e n c e does i n d e e d in  research  (teacher, c h i l d  ( b o t h NS and  than anaphoric  NNS)  across a l l  o r g a n i z e d ) , i n a l l groups  (NS,NNS)  115  f o r a l l ages and  sexes. S p a t i a l / t e m p o r a l r e f e r e n c e  was  c o n c r e t e , the c h i l d r e n ' s input to one another d u r i n g t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n ( s ) i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s was  c l o s e to the  a c t u a l i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n ( s ) . L i k e the i n t e r a c t i o n s of NS mothers and t h e i r c h i l d r e n  (see, f o r example, Cross,  1977),  peer group i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h i s classroom between n a t i v e and non-native  E n g l i s h speaking c h i l d r e n was  dynamic - c r e a t e d ,  m o d i f i e d , r e p l a y e d and r e c r e a t e d as the a c t i o n of the group progressed - and the v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n was  language-in-action,  language and content were c l o s e l y t i e d to the  interaction  contexts the l e a r n e r ' s o r g a n i z e d . N e i t h e r group (NS, NNS),  nor  age, nor sex proved a f a c t o r f o r the o v e r a l l use of the exophoric r e f e r e n c e items by the The  children.  c h i l d r e n a l s o used more anaphoric items i n c h i l d  organized s i t u a t i o n s than they d i d i n teacher organized situations  (however, v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was g e n e r a l l y  exophoric) probably due  to the i n c r e a s e d v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n  of a l l c h i l d r e n i n c h i l d organized s i t u a t i o n s . N e i t h e r nor sex, nor group was  age,  a f a c t o r i n the o v e r a l l use of the  anaphoric r e f e r e n c e items by the  children.  There were i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the use of some of the r e f e r e n c e items f o r the exophoric to anaphoric r a t i o ,  and  f o r both the i n d i v i d u a l use of exophoric and of anaphoric demonstratives  and pronominals.  These are b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d i n  the paragraphs  that f o l l o w under the headings:  anaphoric r a t i o , exophoric items, anaphoric  exophoric to  items.  116  Exophoric  to  Anaphoric  Individual analysis  for  significant  you,  each  item are  (Proportion)  i n the  exophoric to  findings for  we,  your,  the  she,  briefly  results  anaphoric following  this,  and  d i s c u s s e d as  of  the  ratio  involved  seven  the".  data  items:  The r e s u l t s  for  follows,  "my" Males  organized  used  children males  than  groups This (e.g.  for  with  result  females. age  the  rearing  is  for  due  and/or  are  differences,  due  to  that  girls here  are  participate  find  may be  females  (teacher,  across  to  is  to  across  a l l  learn and/or  to  be  be  more  (e.g.  the  T h o u g h no sex  recommended.  i n teacher  encouraged  organized).  personality  cultures).  to  for  seemed  child  concerning these  encouraged  less  teacher  "my" a l s o  and  f o r NS  and g r e a t e r  socio-cultural factors  offered  girls  organized  m o t i v a t i o n and  additional research  however,  therefore,  to  of  b o y s were more m o t i v a t e d  conclusions  therefore,  The u s e  teacher  v/as g r e a t e r  NNS c h i l d r e n  situations  either  in  in child  ratio  both males  of boys versus  may b e  the  was f o r  ( N S , NNS) a n d  outgoing)  Boys,  it  frequently  and females  In addition,  than  increase  "my" more  situations  situations.  it  variations  the  "my,  a)  Ratio  For  example,  shy/quiet,  organized gregarious  organized situations  situations. and  outgoing,  non-threatening.  117  There  is  also  pronominal  some  evidence  "my" i n c r e a s e s  developmental/growth practice b)  i n using  than  for  of  age,  factor  which  "my" o v e r  time.  use  of  the  perhaps  is  "we" was g r e a t e r  indicating a  likely  overall  NNS c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n ,  increased  with  items  the  for  indicate  increases  There  "we" i s  the  for  experience  age.  fact  more that  NSs w i t h  no  due  to  age.  Also,  for  than  NS c h i l d r e n  use  b y NSs  study the  for  of  this  for  anaphoric  p r o n o m i n a l may  NNS c h i l d r e n t o the  use  w h i c h may b e  older  for  instances  difficult in this  in socializing  NS c h i l d r e n who a r e classroom  were  this  c h i l d r e n . The r e s u l t s  that  considering  use  of  more  of  use,  "we"  "we"  requires  familiar  for  NNS c h i l d r e n n e w t o  the  situation.  "you" Item  " y o u " was u s e d  situations  than  because  is  action  it  often  anaphoric greater  to  use  the  use  organized  NNS u s a g e , for  males  and  but  the than  here  also  frequency for  there  There  of  females.  by a l l c h i l d r e n i n c r e a s e d  with  organized  probably  therefore,  a directive.  "you", and  in child  situations  situations,  " y o u " as of  frequently  in directives  organized  "you" greater  "you"  used  instances  than  more  i n teacher  in child  opportunity  of  with  the  "we" The u s e  c)  that  was  more  more  were  no  NS u s a g e  was  occurrence However, age.  And,  with in  118  fact,  o l d e r NNS c h i l d r e n u s e d  children. for  Socio-cultural factors  boys versus  girls)  (practice,  play with  considered  in this  children a  used  more  developmental  facilitated  the  classroom  were  somewhat  may b e  case.  Also,  the  items  than  older  perhaps  use  "you" at  of  new t o  o l d e r NS  rearing  practices  growth i n u s i n g the  trend,  was n o t  supported  teacher  children do  used  p r o b a b l y no  NNS c h i l d r e n w a s  e)  (child  than  fact  an  to  that  be  o l d e r NNS  NS c h i l d r e n may  NSs'  the  factors  item  skills  at  earlier  language,  socializing  point the  indicate  i n time  culture  than  and  the  "your"  there  to  items  situation.  "Your"  in  and/or  language)  NNS c h i l d r e n who a r e  d)  more  greater  data  in child  of using  to  i n that  situations.  capable  organized  opportunities  by the  organized  are  i n teacher  use the  organized This  situations  it. use  of  is  "your"  situations  suggests  "your" given  This  -  that  by  than  the  opportunities  so.  "she" All  and were  instances used  situations. more  lessons  -  the  pronominal "she"  b y NS c h i l d r e n i n t e a c h e r  The u s e  related  situations  of  to  of  "she"  teaching  the  u s i n g the  in this  situations  c h i l d r e n used word  "she".  "she"  were  anaphoric  organized  classroom appears than  to  when t h e  to  be  non-teaching teacher  taught  119  f)  "this" The  no  o v e r a l l use o f " t h i s "  anaphoric  child  instances.  organized  f a r more o f t e n result  "this".  by NNS  therefore, "This"  people  close  were  most f r e q u e n t l y i n  c h i l d r e n t h a n by NS c h i l d r e n . child  there  i s also  comprehend i n c h i l d things,  occurred  there  s i t u a t i o n s f o r a l l c h i l d r e n , and was  i s p r o b a b l y because  concrete,  or  "This"  was e x o p h o r i c ,  organized  organized  This  situations are  a r e more o p p o r t u n i t i e s  e a s i e r f o r NNS  used  t o use  children to  s i t u a t i o n s because the  and e v e n t s a r e i m m e d i a t e l y  taking  place  i n t i m e and s p a c e .  g) " t h e " Use  of "the" varied  more e x o p h o r i c a l l y are  generally  organized distant also  i n child  concrete,  s i t u a t i o n , i t was  organized  s i t u a t i o n s which, i n t h i s  research  (NS, NNS). A g a i n ,  and/or sex d i f f e r e n c e s  u s e o f e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c  situations  i n the classroom.  A d d i t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s were f o u n d i n d i v i d u a l exophoric  brief  discussion  of these  as w e l l  personality,  may be f a c t o r s  i s n e e d e d on s e x d i f f e r e n c e s  children's  the  "The" was  by m a l e s t h a n by f e m a l e s i n a l l  and f o r a l l g r o u p s  and/or m o t i v a t i o n  i n teacher  c l a s s r o o m , were more  f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n i n t i m e and s p a c e .  situations  used  s i t u a t i o n s which  and more a n a p h o r i c a l l y  u s e d more f r e q u e n t l y  Further  with  and t h e  items i n d i f f e r e n t  i n analyzing  as the anaphoric  findings  here.  follows.  only items. A  120  Exophoric  Items  The d a t a significant your,  her,  for  for  the  now,  The f o l l o w i n g  your,  this,  and  and  items  were  in child  now a n d  in  organized situations  the  is  used  immediate  space,  used these  easier  LI -  future  compare  for  and  items  NS t o  used  indicate  past  future  are  is  to he  used  concrete,  i n a manner  distant  from  because  related  to  the  f o r NNS o f  p r o n o m i n a l s as  c h i l d r e n ' s use  LI with  use  "this"  i n the and  or  for  to  things  things here  are  that not  interactions and  L2.  these  they  as  study,  exophoric  NNS c h i l d r e n  interaction,  use,  English.  "now" more  p r o b a b l y because  easier  of  to  frequently  of young c h i l d r e n ' s  "my",  the  than  t h a n NNS  no way o f k n o w i n g i n t h i s  immediate  events,  grasp  these  in their  usually  directly  more  to  difficult  NS c h i l d r e n . T h i s i s  children  are  likely  more  contrast  and d e m o n s t r a t i v e s  the  more  pronominals are  L2 studies  NNS c h i l d r e n  or  which  you,  a l l related  often  there  than  therefore,  are  "we,  more  NS i n t h e i r  anaphoric  often  "her"  may u s e  might  items  " y o u r " and  T h e NNS c h i l d r e n  however,  you,  interaction.  because  therefore,  most  i n a c t i o n and not  NS c h i l d r e n children  used  These  i n time  langauge  my, we,  organized situations:  that".  and  "I,  was  that".  nearness child  exophoric items  a variety of factors:  this,  exophorically  following  often  pronominals to  use,  do n o t  may b e present  they  refer  to  unfamiliar -  a n d now i n t e r a c t i o n .  input  is  to  121  A f e w s e x d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d w i t h t h e e x o p h o r i c items.  " I " was u s e d more b y m a l e s t h a n f e m a l e s i n a l l  s i t u a t i o n s f o r a l l groups.  A n d , "we" a n d " y o u " were  more b y NS m a l e s t h a n b y NNS m a l e s . and  The u s e o f " I " ,  used "we"  " y o u " seemed t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s o f m a l e s  i n t h i s c l a s s r o o m . The m a l e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s  classroom  seemed g e n e r a l l y more o u t g o i n g t h a n t h e f e m a l e  children  ( t h o u g h t h e r e w e r e a l s o s h y m a l e c h i l d r e n ) . The NS m a l e s used  "we" a n d " y o u " t o i n c l u d e a n d d i r e c t m a l e  NNS  i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h them. Oddy e n o u g h "my" was u s e d f r e q u e n t l y by a l l developmental language)  f e m a l e s i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s may be a  factor  and/or  (e.g.a practice effect  - play with  i t may be r e l a t e d t o s e x d i f f e r e n c e s ( e . g .  females mature m o r e / l e s s "You"  more  q u i c k l y t h a n male c h i l d r e n d o ) .  was u s e d more f r e q u e n t l y b y a l l c h i l d r e n w i t h a g e ,  i n d i c a t i n g perhaps  t h a t o l d e r c h i l d r e n u s e " y o u " more  o f t e n b e c a u s e t h e y a r e more c a p a b l e o f d i r e c t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s than are younger c h i l d r e n  their  (see, Garvey,  1977)•  No f i r m e x p l a n a t i o n s o r c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be r e a c h e d i n t h i s s t u d y c o n c e r n i n g s e x d i f f e r e n c e s b e c a u s e t h e s e were n o t t h e focus of t h i s Anaphoric  study.  Items  Two a n a p h o r i c i t e m s p r o v e d s i g n i f i c a n t r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d belows  "she" and " i t " .  factors f o r  B o t h i t e m s were  more f r e q u e n t l y u s e d a s a n a p h o r i c i t e m s i n t e a c h e r o r g a n i z e d s i t u a t i o n s t h a n t h e y were i n c h i l d  organized situations.  122  This  is  not  situations organized also  surprising  i n that  both items  removed f r o m i m m e d i a t e situations  are used  i n t e r a c t i o n and  experienced c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s In  conclusion,  reference  items  t h e use  i n the E n g l i s h  of various  of  c o n v e r s a t i o n was more a n a p h o r i c  language.  in situations  b u t more e x o p h o r i c  organized.  O v e r a l l t h e t e a c h e r u s e d more i t e m s  features  situations  And, was  situations  that  she  also  and was more v e r b a l i n t h e s e  children's groups  (recall  interactions  (NS/NNS),  the  in a l l  children's  greater  organized  in  were m a i n l y situations  use  in  (as  was  u s e d more  (teacher/child  over  with group,  t h e use  specific  of  Finally, were m a i n l y interactions context  context  situations, education  situation,  that  has  (1)  dependent,  were m a i n l y  bound i n  s e x and age  the and  context  spontaneous clear  all  organized).  of discourse  e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c  the f a c t  The  interactions  4.1  Some  interactions  teacher's  in  became more child  f o r r e s e a r c h and and 4 . 2 ,  for  items.  r e d u c e d but  implications  (discussed i n parts  the  features  were f o u n d  children's (2)  items  teacher  and v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y ) . variations  she  discourse  exophoric across  t h e use  The  teacher  situations).  situations  is  the c h i l d r e n -  o f b o t h e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c  c h i l d organized  situations  children  interactions.  organized,  organized  was  exophoric/anaphoric  structure  in  "She"  t h e y were more  b y t h e t e a c h e r and b y NS and NNS  i n f l u e n c e d by t h e . s i t u a t i o n a l teacher's  teacher  p r o v e d t o be more a n a p h o r i c .  u s e d more by NS c h i l d r e n p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e  in  this  organized for  report).  123  3.4  Summary a n d  Conclusions  The p r e s e n t participation), features, the  in  and  child  II,  teacher  was  The d a t a  on w h i c h  classroom  the  discourse  reference  used  interaction classroom  i n both  and  were  more  verbal  From these for  this  and  In  were interactions  both  situations. is  based  Measures  of  and  the  consisted  of  video  verbal  exophoric/anaphoric  data  organized  study  for  and  revealed  ( N S , NNS) o u t p u t  situation.  verbal  more  of  learner  may v a r y w i t h far  output,  organized  classroom.  children's  features  teacher  teacher  in  output,  input  in child  and  organized  situations.  The r e s u l t s teacher  in  interaction  study  analyze  situations  NS t e a c h e r ' s  i n the  and  interactions.  to  the  organized  participation, were  I,  N S , NNS  child  (discourse  in different  examined  input  (verbal  interaction  situations  i n English in  output  structure)  output,  and  and  Experiment  organized  investigated  taped  In  examined  input  interaction  Experiment  in  and  situational  classroom.  input  study  In  this  in situations  organized  they  it  became a p p a r e n t  L2 r e s e a r c h e r s  to  relate  situations.  Just  as  the  teacher  was  that  to  the  teacher  and  the  it  input  more  (NS)  participation  themselves  results  output  both  or verbal  classroom  she  i n situations  that  was  children  organized. was  in  verbal  necessary  various in  teacher  124  organized  situations,  she  items  a l s o u s e d more d i s c o u r s e  and  more r e f e r e n c e  did  while  the  c h i l d r e n themselves organized.  spontaneously  i n these  i n c h i l d organized  v e r b a l . To without  The  items  c h i l d r e n on  amd  more  examine o u t p u t ,  reference  i n p u t and  interaction  individually  various  s i t u a t i o n s that a r i s e i n classrooms could y i e l d  misleading  r e s u l t s . F o r i n s t a n c e , t o examine the n o n - n a t i v e children i n this  s i t u a t i o n s to assess t h a t t h e y were not  study  organized  speaking  as s u c c e s s f u l l y i n E n g l i s h  o f d i s c o u r s e and  examining the  i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h each and  items  organized  consider only i n  interaction,  organized  t h e use  situations;  u s e d no m a t t e r what t h e (teacher or c h i l d  teacher  s i t u a t i o n s would  c h i l d r e n ' s own  of discourse  teacher  items  spontaneous  however, the  s i t u a t i o n she  organized  was  activities).  of e i t h e r teacher  features  u s e d more i t e m s  in  same f e a t u r e s were interacting  This  suggests  c e r t a i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n may characteristic  the  other.  a l s o v a r i e d w i t h s i t u a t i o n . The teacher  reference  To  as  c h i l d r e n were u s i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y f e w e r  t h a n i s i n d i c a t e d by  Input  organized  t h e i r v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n w o u l d show  situations ignoring child  r e v e a l t h a t the  English  only i n teacher  t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s i n the peer group suggest. c h i l d r e n ' s use  the  s i t u a t i o n s when t h e y w e r e more  c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the  speaking  she  i n t e r a c t i n g i n s i t u a t i o n s that  o t h e r h a n d u s e d more d i s c o u r s e items  s i t u a t i o n s than  items  in that  be  or a d u l t t a l k i n g e n e r a l .  It  suggests  increase be  with  a need  features larger  that  the  for  L2 r e s e a r c h e r s  i n L2 l e a r n e r ' s  researchers  to  stop  becomes  in  any s i t u a t i o n . to  were  important  the  The u s e  they  used  teacher  in  in situations  features  in child  the  the  they the  teacher  the  i n the  v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A n d , some to  native  importance language study.  either  NS a n d / o r  and n o n - n a t i v e that  and  they  other  place  differences  Some i n d i c a t i o n  important classrooms  factor  to  was a l s o  on v a r i o u s  that  consider  than in  more  the  children  of discourse  items  of  used  and  used  With  were  NNS c h i l d r e n ,  speakers  Others  organized  also  use  not  NS a n d NNS  organized,  children  features scope  sex d i f f e r e n c e s  items  more  indicating  English  beyond the  used  learners.  The c h i l d r e n  organized situations. increase  the  as  rarely  learners.  themselves  with  features  are  by the  may  for  s t u d y were  than  situation.  there  a need  they  in this  teacher  may  discourse  discourse  to  used  interactions  may b e  features  teacher  was a s i m i l a r  important that  the  situations  with  with  to  and/or  varied with  contrast  there  there  s t u d y i n g some  of discourse  too  items  investigate  and t e a c h e r ' s  Some f e a t u r e s  items  therefore,  i n c r e a s i n g l y obvious that  important  more  to  In addition,  it  more  of discourse  verbal participation,  samples.  children  number  vary i n due of  may b e  to this an  i n c o n d u c t i n g L2 r e s e a r c h  i n d i c a t e d by v a r i a t i o n s  i n the  the  use  in of  f e a t u r e s b y m a l e and (NS  and  NNS),  female c h i l d r e n across  a s w e l l as w i t h i n g r o u p s (NS,  a d d i t i o n , the  teacher's  r e q u i r e d of the  frequent  and  NNS).  of features  l e a r n e r s p r e s p e c i f i e d answers to  and/or i n s i n c e r e requests b o t h t h e NS  use  groups  NNS  f o r i n f o r m a t i o n may  c h i l d r e n ' s use  of features  In that questions,  have  limited  in  teacher  organized s i t u a t i o n s . The the  e x a m i n a t i o n o f i n p u t and  s i t u a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of i n t e r a c t i o n s f o r  anaphoric  (spatial/temporal) reference  w i t h s i t u a t i o n . B o t h NS concrete  i n t h e i r use  teacher's  and  NNS  w i t h the  items a l s o v a r i e d  c h i l d r e n were f a r more  of reference  items,  background knowledge of the  conveyed and/or t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n and  r e f e r to l i n g u i s t i c  whereas  ideas presented  s m a l l g r o u p s , and  that they  preceding  a c t i v i t y progressed  the  c h i l d r e n , b o t h NS  linguistic  that enough  could  or f o l l o w i n g  I n g e n e r a l , most c h i l d r e n ' s  were d y n a m i c i n t h a t t h e  the  the  information  i n t e r a c t i o n s were e x t r e m e l y a c t i v e , c o n s i s t e d o f  or regressed.  and  NNS  was  The  flexible  a c t i o n changed language used  or very  i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n . The  c l o s e i n t i m e and  teacher  a c t i v i t i e s w i t h few  by  language-in-action,  i t e m s were u s e d t o r e f e r t o t h i n g s , p e o p l e  events t a k i n g place  sedentary  the  c h i l d r e n were f a m i l i a r  items i n the  t e x t of a c o n v e r s a t i o n .  of  exophoric/  i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h them o f t e n assumed t h a t  c h i l d r e n had was  i n t e r a c t i o n i n terms  space t o  generally organized  and the  more  opportunities for action  and  as  127  presented, t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h l i n g u i s t i c the  s o c i o - c u l t u r a l contexts  items  i n which they a r e used, assuming  t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d comprehend t h e s e r e f e r t o them. The t e a c h e r pictures,  items  a n d be a b l e t o  o f t e n used v i s u a l a i d s , such a s ,  c h a r t s and r e a l i a ;  were p r e s e n t ,  i n absence o f  h o w e v e r , e v e n when t h e s e  materials  t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n was o f t e n  removed f r o m t h e immediate e x p e r i e n c e  o f these  a i d s a n d was  more d i s t a n t i n t i m e a n d s p a c e t h a n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s own spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h m a t e r i a l s . Differences i n the s i t u a t i o n a l  structure of this  teacher's  i n t e r a c t i o n s and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h e m s e l v e s a f f e c t e d the nature must be c o n s i d e r e d L2  of the input provided an important  research variable i n studying  i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n i n c l a s s r o o m s .  to i n t e r a c t i n concrete, provided  f o r L2 l e a r n e r s and  These c h i l d r e n chose  a c t i o n oriented contexts  which  them w i t h m e a n i n g f u l a n d c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t ( a s  i n d i c a t e d by t h e l e a r n e r s themselves t h r o u g h t h e i r  increased  v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e L2 i n t h e p e e r group and i n c r e a s e d use  of discourse  and r e f e r e n c e  items). Meaningful  and  c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n was; h o w e v e r , n o t t h e same a s t h e i n p u t p r o v i d e d  by t h e i r t e a c h e r .  For the teacher  m e a n i n g f u l i n p u t was o f t e n d i s t a n t f r o m t h e l e a r n e r s a n d r e q u i r e d o f them a n U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p e o p l e , t h a t were o f t e n o n l y p r e s e n t  t h i n g s and e v e n t s  i n the language o f the teacher.  W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e NNS c h i l d r e n u n d e r s t o o d them i s unknown, a s is  t h e i r value  are mainly  f o r h e l p i n g y o u n g c h i l d r e n (whose i n t e r a c t i o n s  exophoric)  l e a r n a second  language.  128  Some v a r i a t i o n s were f o u n d i n t h e u s e o f i n d i v i d u a l e x o p h o r i c and a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e w i t h i n groups  i t e m s b o t h a c r o s s and  (NS, NNS) f o r age a n d s e x . Some i t e m s w e r e u s e d  more f r e q u e n t l y b y m a l e s t h a n f e m a l e s , a n d / o r b y f e m a l e s  than  by m a l e s . Some i t e m s were u s e d more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h age w i t h i n one  sex, or across  the  u s e o f some i t e m s may f o l l o w t r e n d s  associated  with  t h e s e x e s . These v a r i a t i o n s suggest i n development  c h i l d r e n o f t h i s age ( e . g . p h y s i c a l ,  development, e t c . ) . F o r i n s t a n c e ,  some s e x d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e u s e o f f e a t u r e s ,  needs t o g i v e  variations i n studying The  greater  social  accepted,  such a s , the  "we" may be t h e r e s u l t o f t h i s e a r l i e r  L2 r e s e a r c h  usually  i f female c h i l d r e n mature  more q u i c k l y t h a n m a l e c h i l d r e n d o , a s i s g e n e r a l l y  inclusive  that  maturity.  a t t e n t i o n t o s e x a n d age  output, input  and i n t e r a c t i o n .  r e s u l t s a n d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s s t u d y n e e d t o be  interpreted with  some c a u t i o n ;  there  a r e a number o f  limitations to their interpretation. First,  classroom  i n t e r a c t i o n i s h i g h l y v a r i a b l e and t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n ( s ) may v a r y  g r e a t l y f r o m one s i t u a t i o n t o  another, producing considerable obtained.  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the data  F o r example, t h e t r a i n i n g / e x p e r i e n c e  of  teachers  v a r i e s , t h e number o f L I a n d L2 l e a r n e r s i n c l a s s e s v a r i e s , the  background knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e language  l e a r n e r s i n u s i n g a second language v a r i e s , a s does s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l background l i f e obtained  here should  experience(s).  be v i e w e d a s e x p l o r a t o r y  v a l i d a t e d by a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s .  their The r e s u l t s  a n d n e e d t o be  129  Second, the  first  session. longer  each  sample  consecutive The d a t a  segments  in this  one  hundred  may c h a n g e  are  used  study  limited  utterances  i n other  for  was  each  of  each  situations  sample.  to  i f  most  interactions  between  English  p r o f i c i e n c y were  not  case  the  students  i n the  were  interactions longer  than  lasted five  situations.  The  interactions easier  to  concrete altered  the  the  Although  output, the  talk this  input  and  i f  c h i l d r e n . The  organized  organized  lend  for  limited This  length  the  the  m a n y N S , NNS of  time  (much  organized  of young  difference i f  was  (i.e.  Is  interaction  u s i n g language  is  children's it is  created,  and/or  progresses?). is  that  exploratory  NS t e a c h e r  study are  and  its  itself  to  i n nature,  there  is  a n d NNS c h i l d r e n ' s with  the  differences  o r g a n i z e d by the  situational  interactions,  may . n a t u r a l l y  this  of  minutes.  English,  Long  reports  A l t h o u g h many o f  interaction varies  situations  five  dynamic nature  conversation  study  suggest  of  students  particularly in child  for  context  s i t u a t i o n under  exist the  to  minutes)  on a  than  considerable  may a c c o u n t  and  evidence  speakers  a  and  study.  spontaneous,  carry  as  shorter  present  limited  NSs  shorter/  For example,  (1981:154) l i m i t e d h i s s a m p l e t o f i v e m i n u t e s a n d that  taped  structure  spontaneity  structure  i n the  data  teacher  conversation,  may  and/or  o f NS/NNS and  of  child  concreteness whereas  i n t e r a c t i o n may i n d i r e c t l y d i s c o u r a g e  teacher  conversation  130  due t o t h e t e a c h e r ' s d o m i n a t i o n and  of the conversation,  because o f h e r i n f l e x i b i l i t y  and f a i l u r e  to adjust  what she i s d o i n g t o accommodate t h e l e a r n e r s . Furthermore, to  c e r t a i n discourse features important  t h e t e a c h e r i n t h a t t h e y a r e used  consistently across situations c h i l d r e n i n NS, NNS  child  r e g u l a r l y and  are not important to the  i n t e r a c t i o n - some d i s c o u r s e  f e a t u r e s used  b y t e a c h e r s may n o t a s s i s t  There i s a l s o  some r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r a n k  of  t h e L2  learner.  u s e o f some d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s may be s i m i l a r  L2 s t u d i e s . The o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e features i n this resembled  order  across  of various discourse  classroom, f o r instance, c l o s e l y  t h a t r e p o r t e d by Long (1981) and Peck  (1985).  As f a r a s e x o p h o r i c a n d a n a p h o r i c r e f e r e n c e i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e NS a n d NNS  children i n this  s t u d y u s e d more  items i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s - language  was u s e d  For c h i l d r e n o f t h i s age, s m a l l group,  exophoric  i n action.  dynamic,  concrete  i n t e r a c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y f o r l e a r n i n g and u s i n g a language  as i n d i c a t e d by t h e c h i l d r e n t h e m s e l v e s .  c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e NS, NNS  second Even the  c h i l d r e n and t h e t e a c h e r  when o r g a n i z e d b y t h e c h i l d r e n were n e a r e r t o t h e a c t i o n in  t i m e and  space.  The d y n a m i c , s m a l l g r o u p n a t u r e  of child  organized  i n t e r a c t i o n a l s o e n c o u r a g e s c o n v e r s a t i o n . B o t h t h e NS a n d t h e NNS  children i n this  s t u d y w e r e f a r more v e r b a l i n  the s i t u a t i o n s they themselves  organized, they also  produced  131  more r e f e r e n c e a n d d i s c o u r s e i t e m s . Many L2 r e s e a r c h e r s (see,  L o n g , 1981  o r Krashen  and T e r r e l l ,  1983)  have  suggested  t h a t L2 l e a r n e r s l e a r n b e s t i n s m a l l g r o u p s a n d i n s i t u a t i o n s where l a n g u a g e i s c l o s e l y t i e d  t o a c t i o n , t h e r e f o r e easy t o  c o m p r e h e n d . The b e s t s i t u a t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g a n L2 a r e s a i d to  m i r r o r NS m o t h e r / N S c h i l d  r e s e a r c h e r s o f t e n suggest have been The  conducted  interaction.  Although  t h a t t h i s i s t h e case, few s t u d i e s  w i t h L2 l e a r n e r s t o v a l i d a t e t h i s c l a i m .  i n t e r a c t i o n s of the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study o f f e r  some  v a l i d i t y t o t h i s c l a i m - c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s were v e r y much l i k e  those  o f n a t i v e s p e a k i n g mothers and c h i l d r e n  i n t e r a c t i n g with the c h i l d ' s f i r s t The  two d i f f e r e n t  versus c h i l d  situations  language. s t u d i e d here  o r g a n i z e d ) p r o v i d e d two v e r y  (teacher  different  e x p e r i e n c e s f o r t h e c h i l d L2 l e a r n e r . The c h i l d situations i n this  classroom  organized  c e r t a i n l y a p p e a r e d t o be more  u s e f u l e x p e r i e n c e s f o r a i d i n g L2 l e a r n e r s t o l e a r n E n g l i s h as t h e i r second  language,  t h a n were t h o s e  second  language  l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d by t h e t e a c h e r i n t h i s classroom  - g i v e n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f L2 r e s e a r c h e r s f o r  s m a l l group, c o n c r e t e and dynamic c l a s s r o o m It  interaction.  i s hoped t h a t g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n w i l l  be g i v e n t o  a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e x p e r i e n c e s p r o v i d e d f o r L2 l e a r n e r s i n v a r i o u s t e a c h i n g and n o n - t e a c h i n g  situations  b e f o r e a r r i v i n g a t c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t L2 l e a r n e r p r o f i c i e n c y in  t h e L2 a n d b e f o r e a r r i v i n g a t c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g  o u t p u t , i n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e c l a s s r o o m .  132  CHAPTER FOUR IMPLICATIONS The for  present  improving  study  suggests  classroom  p r a c t i c e w i t h young second  l e a r n e r s and f o r c o n d u c t i n g language a c q u i s i t i o n . parts  r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d  These i m p l i c a t i o n s  that f o l l o w with p a r t i c u l a r  children's 4.1  a number o f i m p l i c a t i o n s  are presented  i n classrooms.  main g o a l f o r E S L t e a c h e r s  competence  language  i s t o g e t NNS  r a n g i n g from  language  important  (thinking,  informal interaction  foundation f o r l a t e r  taking place i n those  narrow t h i s  an  easier  for  study  i n situations  situations  To  talking  literacy.  discussion i n this  As i n d i c a t e d  there  1)  Teacher  in  teacher organized  output  with  by t h e r e s u l t s  i s a gap between what  o r g a n i z e d by t h e t e a c h e r  organized  by t h e c h i l d r e n  gap and make t h e l e a r n i n g  classroom  this i s  communicating) form the  t a s k f o r young c h i l d r e n ,  improving  t o academic  because v e r b a l e x p e r i e n c e s  doing,  develop  of different  and/or o t h e r p u r s u i t s . With young c h i l d r e n particularly  children  so t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w i l l  i n communicating i n a v a r i e t y  situations,  and  i n the  e m p h a s i s on young  (NS, NNS) i n t e r a c t i o n s  to use the second  is  o f second  Implications f o r Education The  and  language  practice  o f a second  language,  the f o l l o w i n g suggestions  are offered:  or verbal p a r t i c i p a t i o n situations  themselves.  s h o u l d be  reduced  so t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e  133  encouraged to p a r t i c i p a t e v e r b a l l y . In t h i s study the t e a c h e r t o t a l l y dominated the c o n v e r s a t i o n i n teacher organized s i t u a t i o n s  l e a v i n g l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the  c h i l d r e n to p a r t i c i p a t e v e r b a l l y . 2) The l e n g t h and number of t e a c h e r u t t e r a n c e s should be a d j u s t e d to accommodate: a) a range of s i t u a t i o n s  ranging  from i n f o r m a l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n through to group i n t e r a c t i o n i n more f o r m a l l y organized s i t u a t i o n s ,  and b) a  range of l e a r n e r a b i l i t i e s i n the second language from b e g i n n e r s , through i n t e r m e d i a t e , to more advanced second language l e a r n e r s . In t h i s study, few adjustments were made to accommodate ESL c h i l d r e n e i t h e r i n c o n t r o l l i n g l e n g t h of teacher u t t e r a n c e s , or i n r e c o g n i t i o n that l e a r n e r s have d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s and that some s i t u a t i o n s  r e q u i r e more/less  f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s . T h i s t e a c h e r ' s i n t e n t i o n s may have been sound, but a n a l y s i s  of the data i n t h i s study r e v e a l e d that  adjustments were not being made to accommodate e i t h e r l e a r n e r or s i t u a t i o n . 3) The use of d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s by teachers should be a l t e r e d : a)  so that d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , questions r e q u i r i n g  l e a r n e r s to give p r e s p e c i f i e d answers and/or i n s i n c e r e r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n are reduced and r e p l a c e d with questions i n s i t u a t i o n s  that encourage problem s o l v i n g and  h y p o t h e s i z i n g ( e . g . r a t h e r than: What c o l o u r i s questions such as What i s would you . . .?,  the best way to  or Can anyone guess . . .  this?,  . . . ?, .?,  or How  e t c . ) b) so that  features to  such as  teachers  or  emphasized, and h o l d reduced reduce In  and  the  information organized. to  to  picking  learners  be  a) to  and  of  to  the  acquire  within  a  own i d e a s  time  and she  was  learners i n the  had  spent  attention,  material  specific period,  interests  that  that  activities  teaching  are  ACTION.  she  had  rather  and u s i n g a  to  talk  to  make  problem  young second  the  action  used  b)  taking place r e d u c i n g the  i n teacher reference the  i n time  only  items,  and  quantity  organized  contexts  language  using mainly exophoric reference  needed  interactions  namely  the  learners  clear  a l l c h i l d r e n have  experience  of features  their  c o n t r o l the  immediate,  items  not  activities.  and u s i n g a n a p h o r i c that  the  up on l e a r n e r to  are  few q u e s t i o n s  provide  the  situations  by:  anaphoric  used  content  taught  important  maintain interaction  should control their  close  concrete  to  the  involve  approach  various  items  learners  use  features,  teacher  O f t e n much o f  4) T e a c h e r s of  the  not  situations  the to  are  by n o n - l i n g u i s t i c d e v i c e s  these  m a i n t a i n and  scheduled  solving  that  and/or  for  about  t r y i n g to  than  so  that  i n any  replaced  need  study  required  or  c)  attention,  the  trying  learners  and/or  this  corrections  space,  of  situations,  when i t  is  very  obvious  background knowledge  and children's  to  grasp  the  in this  study  were  information.  The  mainly exophoric  indicating  135  the  c h i l d r e n themselves  contexts,  prefer  communicating with  involved  in action.  with  the  c h i l d r e n were  more  distant  from  A large  the  immediate  to  L2  learners  were  able  5)  Teachers  should encourage  situations flexible,  observed  individuals  the  pupil  the  unique  in this  study  moved i n and to  the  out  of  a c t i v i t y as  situations  i n which  occasional  group  little  small class  opportunity  children.  The  (particularly that  there  was  to  time  to  the  and the  and  the  organized  whole  the  small,  action  class  child  nature  small  in  of  organized group  however,  groups  at  will  progressed.  c l a s s r o o m v/ere m a i n l y the to  participate  focus  space  learners  as  of  were  i n small  ESL c h i l d r e n )  the  well  is  c h i l d r e n sat, the  teacher.  planned groups  i n the  classroom interaction for  and  s i t u a t i o n was  was p l a c e d  were  content  i n teacher  these  in this  when c o n v e n i e n t  whole  involvement  groups  they  result.  aspects  and p a r t i c i p a t e d  the  a  interactions  and  how l i t t l e  i n t e r a c t i o n as  organized groups  class  as  are  teacher's  a c t i o n i n time  teacher  The c h i l d r e n ' s  contributing  whole  group  One o f  interaction.  Teacher  involve  small  situations  grasp  a n d now  they  i n d i c a t i n g that  k n o w how m u c h o r to  i n here  while  the  by p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s  that  interaction.  other of  anaphoric  was d i f f i c u l t  interact  each part  it  participation  to  o n one  to  small  When  in this  giving  the classroom  the  teacher  a c t i v i t y with  patterns  needed  listened  be  in this  the  class,  reorganized  group.  so  6)  Teachers  to  participate  their  should provide  "teachable under 7)  moments"  study  realia  studied were  life  and  recreating  activities  i n the  q u a l i t y of  progress Many  classroom  of preplanned  provided for  lessons.  the  learning  young c h i l d r e n by k e e p i n g  communication surrounding key v i s u a l s to  the  in this  immediate  used,  of  the  report  materials  usefulness  opportunities  situations.  and went  improve the  c h i l d r e n and  often  these  came  can  close  the  organized  i n favour  and  modifying  l e a r n i n g as  here  opportunities language  for  i n teacher  Teachers  with  in creating,  own c o n t e x t s  and d e v e l o p  children with  the  experiences  materials.  visual  however, often  ranged  the  aids  the  materials and  interactions I n the  and  for  place  materials  discussion  afield.  around  As a r e s u l t  b r i d g i n g the  present  and/or  classroom  concrete  teacher's far  taking  the  gap  the  between  classroom situation  was  limited. 4.2 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r In the  a d d i t i o n to  quality of  study  also  quality  of  Research the  foregoing implications for improving  educational  practice  has  a number  of  implications for  the  research  i n the  acquisition.  Some s u g g e s t i o n s  for  improving second  and  i n general  are s  language  field  for  of  L2 l e a r n e r s ,  second  a r i s i n g out research  improving  the  language  of this  with  this  research  young c h i l d r e n  137  1)  the  study  other  than  features  of  the  of  study  aspects measures study  of  specific  discourse  2)  discourse  there  one  may b e  takes  influence  to  the  features situation  the  discourse which  present  differences  place  interaction.  study  as  of  those  the  another  as  to  other  For  input.  by e i t h e r to  are  important.  such  of  restricted  there  nature  features  to  L2 l e a r n e r s  as  input  to  suggest  mirror perhaps  the  in various that  those  of  because  3)  studies  if  they  are  study  of  the  Researchers  study,  of  example,  used  in  And the  this use  teacher  or  was  case  structure  input  must  start are  the  of  learners in  older  the  teacher,  and to  verbal  the  for  There  through  is  use  social  what  or  this  study  was  also of  of and  reasons  they  are  verbal  participation of  In  the  language  and  some  evidence  items  may  and/or  taught. meaningful  participation. the  tasks  transmitted  some  i n t e r a c t i o n may b e m o r e output  that  activities  i n how i t  children's  children learn  input  .  situation  during conversation.  i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed  situations  the  provided during  e x a m i n i n g the  considerably  of  interaction  move b e y o n d  engaged  the  related the  i n the  during conversational  communication v a r i e d  this  are  other  study.  which  in  that  yet,  and  Measures  presently  language-in-action,  may v a r y f r o m this  are  factors  devices  interaction.  features,  situation  contribute  involves  of negotiating  interaction  the  also  interaction  conversational  of  of  and  analysis  conversational the  input  teacher  and  In the  learners  was  closely related  to  this  increased/decreased  with  k)  proficiency in English  Tests  of  conducted at  across  assessments  second  with  in this  study  of  within  results  proficiency of The u s e  in  this  of  study  developmental  some  trends  specific  age  features  increased  use  of  growth. as  developing s k i l l s  related in  6) S o c i o - c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s  and/or  females  as  and to  as  i n various  organized  situations,  for  represent  discourse  features  closely followed as  with  characteristic  young  i n assessing items.  children  the  use  For example,  inclusives with the  fact  the  that  age the  of the for  children  socializing. (such  may i n f l u e n c e  well  their  English.  and  Studies  reference  for  teacher  accepted  a factor  directives  c h i l d r e n may b e  participation  and  generally  and  practices)  items  the  in  inaccurately  in  in  varied  assessed  organized  would  age  skills  proficiency  within  be  arriving  NS E n g l i s h )  learners  reference  varied with  consider  rearing  as  child  obtained  these  young c h i l d r e n ' s  young  well  should  before  a b i l i t i e s and  ESL c h i l d r e n were  and not  the  5)  are  If  situations  ESL c h i l d r e n ' s (as  (they  participation).  proficiency in English  example,  should  of  learner's The  situations  of  of  situation.  level  a range  language.  English  the  learner  verbal  output  the  as  sex  the  input  output  and  situations.  differences, or  verbal  interaction Greater  child  of  males  attention  s h o u l d be g i v e n t o t h e s e i n L2 c l a s s r o o m s . were o b s e r v e d males versus  factors i n conducting  In this  research  s t u d y a number o f s e x d i f f e r e n c e s  t h a t c o u l d have b e e n r e l a t e d t o t h e r e a r i n g o f females  i n various cultures,  however,  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s f a c t o r was b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e s t u d y . L 2 r e s e a r c h e r s who r e p o r t on s e x d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d be  c a r e f u l i n m a k i n g c o m p a r i s o n s between m a l e s and f e m a l e s  without 7)  considering their native cultural  Given  experiences.  t h e i n c r e a s e d v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f L2 l e a r n e r s  (and L I l e a r n e r s ) i n c h i l d  organized  situations i n this  s t u d y , and g i v e n t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n t h e use o f d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s a n d r e f e r e n c e i t e m s was a l s o r e c o r d e d organized  s i t u a t i o n s over  teacher organized  t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s n e e d t o be a s k e d classrooms  i n child  situations,  o f ESL  and r e s e a r c h programs f o r young  children:  a) Does L 2 i n s t r u c t i o n make a d i f f e r e n c e i n a s s i s t i n g L2  l e a r n e r s t o l e a r n t h e second language o r i s i t peer  group i n t e r a c t i o n i n and around t h e c l a s s r o o m / s c h o o l  that  makes t h e d i f f e r e n c e ? , b) How d o e s t h e c u r r i c u l u m make a difference  i f t h e c h i l d r e n a r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g more v e r b a l l y  i n t h e i r peer group, t h e r e f o r e , a c q u i r i n g the v e r b a l experiences  t h e y need w i t h language  l a t e r l i t e r a c y ) from t h e i r peers i n teacher organized  (prerequisites f o r  and n o t from  interactions  s i t u a t i o n s ? , a n d c ) Do t e a c h e r s , t h e  main i n p u t p r o v i d e r s i n the classroom,  modify  and a d j u s t  140 t h e i r use o f language, t h e i r communicative s t r a t e g i e s , and the  range/type o f a c t i v i t i e s  accommodate t h e l e a r n e r s ,  offered  t o NNS c h i l d r e n t o  o r a r e t h e c h i l d r e n making t h e  a d j u s t m e n t s t o accommodate t h e t e a c h e r ? The  r e s u l t s of t h i s study reveal  that  t h i s teacher  made f e w a d j u s t m e n t s t o accommodate t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s c l a s s r o o m . The t e a c h i n g  t e c h n i q u e s , a c t i v i t i e s and g r o u p i n g  s t r a t e g i e s e m p l o y e d seemed l e s s t h a n s a t i s f a c t o r y b e c a u s e t h e NNS c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d and in  non-verbally  more o p p o r t u n i t y  to participate verbally  i n t h e i r p e e r g r o u p ( a l s o t h e NS c h i l d r e n ) a n d  a way b e s t f a c i l i t a t e s  l e a r n i n g f o r young c h i l d r e n  experiential/concrete/small  flexible  group  (e.g.  activity/oral  language p r a c t i c e , e t c . ) . D i d the i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s classroom make a d i f f e r e n c e  i n helping  language? I t i s d i f f i c u l t  y o u n g NNS c h i l d r e n l e a r n a s e c o n d  t o i d e n t i f y how l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g i n  t h i s c l a s s r o o m made a d i f f e r e n c e , b e y o n d t e a c h i n g to exercise  patience,  t o s i t i n a c t i v e l y f o r extended p e r i o d s o f  time, t o forego changing the subject interest to oneself,  to give  when t h e y a r e a s k e d o f y o u ,  by p r o v i d i n g  prespecified  input of  answers t o q u e s t i o n s  and t o e i t h e r work a l o n e o r t o  learn to s o c i a l i z e i n a large In conclusion,  the c h i l d r e n  group (whole c l a s s ) s i t u a t i o n .  t h e w r i t e r does n o t i n t e n d  to state  that  t e a c h e r s a r e u n n e c e s s a r y i n c l a s s r o o m s where c h i l d r e n a r e l e a r n i n g a n L2 b e c a u s e t h e NNS c h i l d r e n i n t h i s s t u d y w e r e more v e r b a l ,  a n d u s e d more d i s c o u r s e  and  r e f e r e n c e i t e m s i n t h e i r p e e r group. R a t h e r i t i s hoped  that  the  received  more i n p u t  understanding(s) developed w i l l  o f L2 r e s e a r c h a n d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s  h e l p t o improve t h e q u a l i t y of teacher t r a i n i n g .  141  REFERENCES B r u l h a r t , M. 1985. F o r e i g n e r T a l k i n the ESL Classroom: I n t e r a c t i o n a l Adjustments to Adult Students at Two Language P r o f i c i e n c y L e v e l s . Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Bruner, J . 1983. C h i l d ' s T a l k . L e a r n i n g to Use Language. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . C a r r e l l , P. 1982.  16:4.  Cohesion i s not coherence. TESOL Q.  479-487.  Cazden, C , John, V. and Hymes, D. 1972. F u n c t i o n s of Language i n the Classroom. New York: Teacher's College Press. Cazden, C. 1974. P l a y w i t h Language and M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness: One Dimension of Language Experience. Urban Review. 7 * 1 . 28-39. Chaudron, C. 1979• Complexity of t e a c h e r speech and v o c a b u l a r y e x p l a n a t i o n / e l a b o r a t i o n . On TESOL ' 7 9 . Boston. Chaudron, C. 1983. F o r e i g n e r t a l k i n the classroom an a i d to l e a r n i n g ? In S e l i g e r , H. and Long, M. (eds.) Classroom Language A c q u i s i t i o n and Use: New P e r s p e c t i v e s . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. C h e s t e r f i e l d , R. and Chavez, R., et a l . 1982. Peer I n t e r a c t i o n , Language P r o f i c i e n c y and Language Preference i n B i l i n g u a l P r e s c h o o l Classrooms. H i s p a n i c J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e s . 4 : 4 . 467-486. C h e s t e r f i e l d , R., Chavez, R., et a l . 1983. The I n f l u e n c e of Teachers and Peers on Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n i n B i l i n g u a l P r e s c h o o l Programs. TESOL Q. 17*3. 401-420. C l a r k , E. 1977• Awareness of Language: Some Evidence From What C h i l d r e n Say and Do. In S i n c l a i r , A. et a l . ( e d s . ) . The C h i l d ' s Conception of Language. B e r l i n : Springer-Verlag. Cooper, C , Marquis, A. and Ayers-Lopez, S. 1982. Peer l e a r n i n g i n the classroom: t r a c i n g developmental p a t t e r n s and consequences of c h i l d r e n ' s spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n s . In W i l k i n s o n , L. (ed.). Communicating i n the Classroom. New York: Academic P r e s s . 6 9 - 8 3 .  142  Cummins, J . 1979• Cognitive/academic language p r o f i c i e n c y , l i n g u i s t i c interdependence, the optimal age q u e s t i o n and some other matters. Working Papers i n B i l i n g u a l i s m . 19. 197-205. TorontozOISE. Cummins, J . 1980. E n t r y and e x i t f a l l a c y i n b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n . NABE J o u r n a l . 4 i 3 . 25-59. Cummins, J . I98O. The c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c dimensions of language p r o f i c i e n c y t I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r b i l i n g u a l education and the o p t i m a l age i s s u e . TESOL Q. 14. I75-I87. Cummins, J . 1983' Language p r o f i c i e n c y and academic achievement. In O i l e r , J . (ed). Issues i n Language T e s t i n g Research. Rowley, Mass.t Newbury House. 108. Cross, E. 1977* M o t h e r e s e ! i t s a s s o c i a t i o n with r a t e of s y n t a c t i c a c q u i s i t i o n i n young c h i l d r e n . In Waterson, N. and Snow, C. ( e d s . ) . The Development of Communication. London: Wiley and Sons. Donaldson, M. 1978. C h i l d r e n ' s Minds. London: Fontana (Flamingo E d i t i o n ) . Ferguson, C. and Snow, C. ( e d s . ) . 1977. T a l k i n g to C h i l d r e n : Language Input and A c q u i s i t i o n . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. F i l l m o r e , L. W. 1976. The second time around: c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . F i l l m o r e , L. W. I98O. L e a r n i n g a second language: Chinese c h i l d r e n i n the American classroom. In A l a t e s , J . (ed.) Current Issues i n B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . Washington: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 309-325. F i l l m o r e , L. W. 1982. Language m i n o r i t y students and s c h o o l p a r t i c i p a t i o n : What k i n d of E n g l i s h i s needed? J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n . (Boston). 164:2. 143-156. F i l l m o r e , L. W. 1983« I n s t r u c t i o n a l language as l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t : second language l e a r n i n g i n the classroom. In W i l k i n s o n , L. (ed.) Communicating i n the Classroom. New York: Academic P r e s s . F o s t e r , S. 1982. Discourse Topic and C h i l d r e n ' s Emerging A b i l i t y to Hande I t . Proceedings of the E i g h t h Annual Conference on Language and L i n g u i s t i c s . Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . 597-606.  143  Freed, B. 1980. T a l k i n g to f o r e i g n e r s versus t a l k i n g to c h i l d r e n i s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s . In Krashen, and S c a r c e l l a , R. Research i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.  S.  Freed, B. 1981. F o r e i g n e r Talk, Baby Talk, Native T a l k . J o u r n a l of the S o c o i o l o g y of Language. 28. 19-39• Gaies, S. 1977• The nature of l i n g u i s t i c input i n formal second language l e a r n i n g : l i n g u i s t i c and communicative s t r a t e g i e s i n ESL teachers classroom language. On TESOL ' 7 7 . Washington, D.C. Gaies, S. 1983» Classroom Centred Research: State of the A r t . The I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Language Classroom Processes. TESOL Q. 17«2. 205-217. Garvey, C. 1984. C h i l d r e n ' s T a l k . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. H a l l i d a y , M. 1975• L e a r n i n g How to Mean: E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold. H a l l i d a y , M. and Hasan, R, London: Longman.  1976.  Cohesion  i n English.  Hamayan, E. and Tucker, R. 1980. Language input i n the b i l i n g u a l classroom and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to second language achievement. TESOL Q. 14:4. 453-468. Hatch, E., S h a p i r a , R. and Gough, J . 1978. d i s c o u r s e . IRAL. 17:1. 39-60.  Foreigner t a l k  Hatch, E. 1978. Discourse a n a l y s i s and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In Hatch, E (ed.) Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n : A Book of Readings. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Henzle, V. 1979• F o r e i g n e r T a l k i n the Classroom. IRAL. 17*1. 159-167. Hrushovski, B. 1983- I n t e g r a t i o n a l Semantics: An Understander's Theory of Meaning i n Context. Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y Roundtable on Language and L i n g u i s t i c s . Washington, D. C. Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 159-190. Keller-Cohen, D. 1979. S y s t e m a t i c i t y and V a r i a t i o n i n the Non-Native C h i l d ' s A c q u i s i t i o n of C o n v e r s a t i o n a l S k i l l s . Language L e a r n i n g . 2 9 : 1 . 27-44.  144  Krashen, S., S c a r c e l l a , R. and Long,. M. (eds.) C h i l d Adult D i f f e r e n c e s i n Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Krashen, S. and T e r r e l l , T. 1983. The N a t u r a l Approach. Language A c q u i s i t i o n i n the Classroom. Toronto, Ont.: Pergamon P r e s s . K r e c k e l , M. 1981. Communicative a c t s and shared knowledge i n n a t u r a l d i s c o u r s e . New York* Academic P r e s s . Long, M. 1981. Questions i n F o r e i g n e r T a l k D i s c o u r s e . Language L e a r n i n g . J l i l . 135-157• Long, M. 1982. Input, i n t e r a c t i o n and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In W i n i t z , H. ( e d . ) . Native Language And F o r e i g n Language A c q u i s i t i o n . New York: Annals of the New York Academy of S c i e n c e s . 258-278. Long, M. 1983- Does second language i n s t r u c t i o n make a d i f f e r e n c e ? A review of r e s e a r c h . TESOL Q. 14.  358-382.  Long, M. and Sato, C. 1983. Classroom f o r e i g n e r t a l k d i s c o u r s e : forms and f u n c t i o n s of t e a c h e r s ' q u e s t i o n s . In S e l i g e r , H. and Long, M. (eds.) Classroom O r i e n t e d Research on Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Long, M. 1984. Process and Product i n ESL program TESOL Q. 18:3 409-425.  Evaluation.  McLaughlin, B. 1982. Second Language L e a r n i n g and B i l i n g u a l i s m i n C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s . In Rosenburg, S. Handbook o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s : Major Thrusts of Research and Theory. New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum. 217-248. McLaughlin, B. 1984. Second language a c q u i s i t i o n i n c h i l d h o o d . Volume 1. P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. 1985' Second language a c q u i s i t i o n i n c h i l d h o o d . Volume 2. School age c h i l d r e n . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum. M o f f e t t , J . and Wagner, J . 1976. student centred language a r t s and r e a d i n g k - 1 3 . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . Mohan, B. 1985« Language and Content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.  145  N e m o i a n u , A. 1980. The b o a t ' s g o n n a l e a v e : a s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g a second language from c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n . P r a g m a t i c s a n d B e y o n d 1. Amsterdam: J o h n B e n j a m i n s B.V. P e c k , S. 1978. C h i l d - c h i l d d i s c o u r s e i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n H a t c h , E. ( e d . ) S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n . R o w l e y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e . P e c k , S. 1980. L a n g u a g e P l a y i n C h i l d S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n . I n L a r s e n - F r e e m a n , D. ( e d . ) D i s c o u r s e A n a l y s i s i n Second Language R e s e a r c h . R o w l e y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e . P e c k , S. 1985' F o r e i g n e r T a l k D i s c o u r s e a n d P e e r T u t o r i n g i n t h e C l a s s r o o m . P a p e r p r e w s e n t e d a t TESOL. New Y o r k . P i c a , T. a n d L o n g , M. 1982. The l i n g u s i t i c a n d c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d ESL t e a c h e r s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t TESOL. H a w a i i . S a v i l l e - T r o i k e , M. 1982. The E t h n o g r a p h y o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n . An I n t r o d u c t i o n . O x f o r d : B a s i l B l a c k w e l l . S a v i l l e - T r o i k e , M. 1984. What R e a l l y M a t t e r s i n S e c o n d Language L e a r n i n g f o r Academic Achievement? TESOL Q. 1 8 : 2 . 199-219. S c a r c e l l a , R. a n d H i g a , C. 1982a. I n p u t a n d a g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . I n K r a s h e n , S., S c a r c e l l a , R. a n d L o n g , M. ( e d s . ) C h i l d - A d u l t D i f f e r e n c e s i n S e c o n d L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n . R o w l e y , M a s s . : Newbury H o u s e . 175-201. S c a r c e l l a , R. a n d H i g a , C. 1982b. I n p u t , n e g o t i a t i o n a n d age d i f f e r e n c e s i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language L e a r n i n g . 3 1 : 1 . 409-433. S e l i g e r , H. a n d L o n g , M. 1983. ( e d s . ) . C l a s s r o o m O r i e n t e d R e s e a r c h on Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury H o u s e . S h u g a r , G. 1979« F a c e t o F a c e I n t e r a c t i o n a t a g e s 3 t o 5. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y . 5 - 4 : 1 2 . 17-37. Snow, C. a n d H o e f n a g e l - H o h l e , M. 1982. S c h o o l - A g e S e c o n d Language L e a r n e r s A c c e s s t o S i m p l i f i e d I n p u t . Language L e a r n i n g . 32:2. 411-430.  146  S t r o n g , M. 1983. S o c i a l S t y l e s a n d t h e S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n o f Spanish Speaking Kindergartners. TESOL Q. 1 7 : 2 . 2 4 1 - 2 5 8 . Wagner-Gough, J . a n d H a t c h , E, 1975' The i m p o r t a n c e o f input data i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n s t u d i e s . Language L e a r n i n g . 2 5 1 1 . 297-308. W e l l s , G. 1979« V a r i a t i o n i n c h i l d l a n g u a g e . I n L e e , V. ( e d . ) L a n g u a g e D e v e l o p m e n t . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y and S o n s . 382-409. W e l l s , G. ( e d . ) 1981. L e a r n i n g T h r o u g h I n t e r a c t i o n . The s t u d y o f l a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t . New Y o r k : C a m b r i d g e University Press. W e l l s , G. 1983• L a n g u a g e , l e a r n i n g a n d t h e c u r r i c u l u m . E a r l y C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t a n d C a r e . 12. 277-302. W i l l e s , M. 1983. C h i l d r e n i n t o P u p i l s . A S t u d y o f Language i n E a r l y S c h o o l i n g . L o n d o n : R o u t e l e d g e a n d Kegan P a u l . W i l s o n , J . 1979. T h i n k i n g w i t h C o n c e p t s . L o n d o n : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  

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.831.1-0078366/manifest

Comment

Related Items