Exploring the Linguistic Complexity of On-Task and Off-Task Interaction During Chat

1. Exploring the Linguistic Complexity of On-Task and Off-Task Interaction During Chat Shannon Sauro University of Texas at San Antonio shannon.sauro@utsa.edu

2. Just What Kind of Language Are Students Producing during Task-Based CMC? http://www.ishkur.com/posters

3. Style of Chat “No normal person, and no normal community, is limited to a single style of speech …” (Hymes, 1974: 30) Why assume that there is only a single style of chat?

4. Language Within the Same Chat During the Task After the Task

5. Task-Based Research in Chat Tasks As the Object of Research • Negotiation of Meaning Studies • (e.g., Blake, 2000; Pelletieri, 2000; Smith, 2003) Tasks As Data Elicitation Tools • Quality and quantity of self-repair • (Smith, 2008) • Comparison of corrective feedback effectiveness • (Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Sachs & Suh, 2007; Sauro, 2009) • Comparison of ACMC and SCMC • (Sotillo, 2000)

6. The Study

7. Research Questions • Is the lexical diversity of on-task interaction greater than that of off-task interaction during chat? • Is the syntactic complexity of on-task interaction greater than that of off-task interaction during chat?

8. The Participants

9. Collaborative Writing Task: Environmental Issues Word Bank nature global warming space nuclear power mankind industrial waste carbon dioxide pollution wind energy industry

10. On-Task Language “Learner discourse related either directly or indirectly to completion of the assigned task” (Keller-Lally, 2007, p. 105) • Opinion exchange using the target words • Task meta-talk • Negotiation of meaning • Self-repair moves • Responses to feedback moves by interlocutors

11. Off-Task Language • Exchanges that preceded the beginning of the task • opening sequences, introductions • Responses to interlocutor questions not that did not relate to completing the task • tangential topics, personal or general questions • Exchanges following statements of the task being finished, • closing sequences, personal or general questions

12. Transition from On to Off Task Chat

13. Tangential Topics

14. Repairing the Task

15. RQ1: Calculating Lexical Diversity • Excluded tokens: • Use of the L1, participants names, laughter (e.g. “haha”), emoticons, numbers • Included tokens: • Abbreviations (e.g., ex, etc.), texting shorthand (np), ontomatopoetic formulations of surprise (oh, ah) • Determining types: • Different inflections of the same word (industry, industries) and use of contracted forms (ya’ll, he’s) were treated as different types • Index of Guiraud: • The ratio of types to the square root of tokens

16. Lexical Diversity: Descriptive Data N= 24 MLT On-Task: 10.05 MLT Off-Task: 7.65

17. Results: Lexical Diversity N= 24

18. RQ2: Determining Syntactic Complexity • Analysis of Speech Unit (AS-unit): • “a single speaker’s utterance consisting of an independent clause or sub-clausal unit with any subordinate clause(s) associated with either” (Foster, Tonkyn & Wigglesworth, 2000, p. 365) • Clause: • “a finite or non-finite verb element plus at least one other clause element (Subject, Object, Complement or Adverbial)” (p.366) • Measure of Complexity: • Ratio of clauses (independent and subordinate) to AS-units

19. RQ2: Syntactic Complexity Coding Examples

20. Results: Syntactic Complexity N= 24

21. Use of screen capture video to record the full range of learner chat production (e.g. Smith, 2008; Smith & Sauro, 2009) Limitations and Future Directions

22. Limitations and Future Directions • Identifying measures of complexity and accuracy that best reflect the nature of CMC language • Analysis of Chat Unit? • Evaluating lexical diversity through comparison to word frequency lists (Daller, Van Hout & Treffers-Daller, 2003)

23. Limitations and Future Directions Comparison of on-task and off-task chat for less proficient learners and interaction during different types of tasks • Clarissa : 3. richtig? Samuel : 4. ? Clarissa : ich weiss nicht Samuel : Falsch Clarissa : ja Clarissa : 5. richtig? Samuel : ja Samuel : 6. Falsch Clarissa : ja 

24. Internet Oriented Tasks • Tasks that more closely resemble the technology-mediated tasks and tools that language learners actually engage with outside the classroom

25. References Baron, N. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology,4(1), 120-136. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html Crystal , D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daller, H., Van Hout, Roeland, & Treffers-Daller, Jeanine. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Keller-Lally, A.M. (2007). Effects of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United States-Texas. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.

26. References cont. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sachs, R., & Suh, B., (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In. A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1) 96-120. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57. Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 85-103. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/smith/default.html Smith, B., & Sauro, S. (2009). Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 229-247. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html Werry , C.C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.