1 / 31

Interactional modifications

Discourse management amount and type of information conveyed use of questions here-and now orientation comprehension checks self-repetition. Interactional modifications. repair of communication breakdown

rstarnes
Download Presentation

Interactional modifications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Discourse management • amount and type of information conveyed • use of questions • here-and now orientation • comprehension checks • self-repetition Interactional modifications • repair of communication breakdown • negotiation of meaning (requests for clarification; requests for confirmation; self-and other-repetitions) • relinquishing topic Discourse repair • repair of learner error • avoidance of other-correction • on-record and off-record corrections Types of interactional modifications in foreigner talk

  2. Problematic communication types (from Gass and Varonis 1991) Problematic communication Non-engagement miscommunication Non-communication Communication Breakoff misunderstanding Incomplete understanding Non-understanding Partial understanding

  3. Discourse repair • An initial distinction is made between ‘non-engagement’ and ‘miscommunication’ • The former occurs either when there is ‘non-communication’ (i.e. when a non-native speaker avoids talking to a native speaker) or when there is ‘communication breakoff’ (i.e. when a native speaker stops communicating as soon as they discover they are talking to a non-native speaker)

  4. ‘Miscommunication’ occurs when some message other than that intended by the speaker is understood • It can take the form a ‘misunderstanding’ or an ‘incomplete understanding’ (either ‘non-understanding’ or ‘partial understanding’), depending on whether or not the participants overtly recognize a problem and undertake repair • In the case of an ‘incomplete understanding’ remediation occurs, but in the case of ‘misunderstanding’ no repair occurs and the speakers are likely to lapse into silence

  5. Gass and Varonis also note that miscommunication can occur both as result of cross-cultural differences in the way language is interpreted and because of purely linguistic difficulties • Repair, then, occurs when there is an ‘incomplete understanding’ • It takes the form of negotiation of meaning-the collaborative work which speakers undertake to achieve mutual understanding

  6. Native speakers typically use requests for clarification (‘sorry?’, ‘Huh?’, ‘I beg your pardon’) and requests for confirmation, which often make use of intonation or tag questions: NNS: Mexican food have a lot of ulcers. NS: Mexicans have a lot of ulcers? (Young and Doughty 1987)

  7. Other conversational or semantic modifications that help to repair discourse are self- and other-repetitions, which can be exact (i.e. paraphrases) and complete or partial • It should be noted that not all repetitions have a repairing function; as Pica and Doughty (1988) point out, native speakers also use them to manage discourse (i.e. to try to prevent a communication problem arising)

  8. The presence of higher frequencies of discourse repair functions such as requests for clarification and confirmation has been taken as evidence that higher levels of negotiation of meaning are occurring • This is, however, questionable • Ashton (1986) has pointed out that these discourse acts do not unambiguously indicate negotiation of meaning, as the same procedures can be used in non-problematic conversation

  9. Ashton argues that they are often used ‘to achieve a formal display of convergence of the participants’ worlds’ by allowing them to perform ‘a ritual of understanding or agreement’ • In other words, negotiation can be motivated by the interactants’ need to display satisfactory outcomes rather than to overcome trouble sources

  10. In addition to repair work directed at solving problems of understanding, there is also the repair of learners’ error • Schwartz (1980) reports a general preference for self-correction over other-correction in non-native speaker – non-native speaker discourse • Chun et al. suggest that low level of repair reflects the native speakers’ desire not to impair the cohesion of the discourse

  11. In the case of other-correction, a distinction can be made between on-record and off-record feedback • Day, Chenoweth, Chun, and Luppesu (1984) define the former as feedback which occurs when the native speaker responds to the source of a learner’s language problems directly and unambiguously, by means of a statement with declarative intonation

  12. Discourse structure • Gass and Varonis (1985a; Varonis and Gass 1985) have developed a model to describe the structure of ‘non-understanding routines’ where meaning negotiation takes place • It consists of ‘trigger’ (i.e. the utterance or part of an utterance that creates a problem of understanding), an ‘indicator’ which is optional

  13. The ‘indicator-response-reaction to the response’ portion of a non-understanding sequence is called a ‘pushdown’, because it has the effect of pushing the conversation down rather than allowing it to proceed in a forward manner • The model is recursive in that it allows for the ‘response’ element itself to act as a ‘trigger’ for a further non-understanding routine

  14. A simple discourse model of the negotiation of meaning ( example from Gass and Varonis 1985a)

  15. The function of foreigner talk

  16. 1. To promote communication Three functions of foreigner talk 2. To signal, implicitly or explicitly, speakers’ attitudes towards their interlocutors 3. To teach the target language implicitly

  17. Hatch (1983b) argues correctly that (1) is primary in that most adjustments are geared to simplifying utterances to make them easier to process or to clarify what has been said by either the native speaker or the non-native speaker • Hatch characterizes (2) in terms of the special kind of effective bond that FT can create between the native speaker and non-native speaker, but it is also manifest in FT whose purpose is ‘talking down’ (Ferguson and Debose, 1977)

  18. In fact, it can reflect either downward divergence (such as when a native speaker deliberately employs ungrammatical forms with a competent native speaker to signal lack of respect), or downward convergence (such as when a native speaker approximates the interlanguage forms used by the native speaker as a way of signaling solidarity • This double function of (2) may help to explain why ungrammatical FT can occur between non-familiar interlocutors in service or workplace encounters and between familiar interlocutors in ordinary conversation

  19. (3) is only ‘implicit’ because native speakers do not usually have any pedagogic intent, although Naro (1983) in a response to Hatch argues that FT can occur with an explicit teaching function (i.e. with the intention of helping a learner learn)

  20. How native speakers come to be able to adjust the level of their FT to suit the level of individual learners 1. Regression (native speakers move back through the stages of development that characterized their own acquisition of language until they find an appropriate level) Hatch (198b) considers 3 ways 2. Matching (native speakers assess a learner’s current interlanguage state and then imitate the forms they observe in it) 3. Negotiation (native speakers simplify and clarify in accordance with the feedback they obtain from learners in communication with them)

  21. Interlanguage talk ILT consist of the language that learners receive as input when addressed by other learners • In chapter 6 we noted that ILP constitutes the primary source of input for many learners • The treatment will be brief because there is a more extended discussion of the research in chapter 13

  22. ILT, not surprisingly, tends to be less grammatical than FT, but it is characterized by more interactional modifications associated with the negotiation of meaning

  23. The effect of input and interaction on acquisition Input and interaction in first language Input and interaction in second language Input frequency and second language acquisition Comprehensible input and second language acquisition Learner output and acquisition Collaborative discourse and second language acquisition Ungrammatical input Formulaic speech

  24. Input and interaction in first language acquisition • A number of studies have investigated to what extent there is a relationship between the language that caretakers address to children and acquisition • The results have been somewhat contradictory, leading to controversy regarding the role of input in L1 acquisition

  25. One way in which interaction may help children learn language is by providing them with opportunities to form vertical constructions • A vertical construction is built up gradually over several turns • Scollon (1976) provides a number of examples of mother-child discourse, where the child produces a meaningful statement over two or more turns: Brenda : Hiding Adults : What’s hiding? Brenda : Ballon

  26. Scollon suggests that vertical constructions prepare the child for the subsequent production of horizontal constructions (the production of a meaningful statement within a single turn) • Children also seem to benefit from assistance in building conversations about topics in which they are interested

  27. Input and interaction in second language acquisition It is useful to distinguish four broad approaches in studies that have investigated the relationship between input/interaction and L2 acquisition • Simply seeks to establish whether the frequency of linguistic features in the input is related to the frequency of the same features in the learner language • Emphasizes the importance of input that is comprehensible to learners • Emphasizes the role of learner output in interaction • Looks more holistically at discourse by asking how the process of collaborative discourse construction aids acquisition

  28. Input frequency and second language acquisition • The frequency hypothesis states that the order of L2 acquisition is determined by the frequency with which different linguistic items occurs in the input • The hypothesis deals with the relationship between input and accuracy rather than that between input and acquisition

  29. The hypothesis was first advance by Hatch and Wagner-Gough (1976), who suggested that the limited range of topics about which learners, (particularly children) typically talk results in certain grammatical features occurring with great frequency in the input • The more frequently occurring items, they claimed, were among those that emerged early in the learners’ output

  30. Ungrammatical input • Evidence that ungrammatical input has a direct effect on acquisition comes from a study by Gass and Lakshman (1991) • They reanalyzed data from two of the learners investigated by Cazden et al (1975) – Alberto and Cheo – and found a striking correlation between the presence of subjectless utterances in the input and in the production of the two learners

  31. Formulaic speech • How do learners learn formulas? • One possibility is that they respond to the high frequency of certain patterns and routines in the input • Ellis, for instance, suggested that the formulas learnt by the three classroom learners investigated reflected frequently occurring social and organizational contexts that arose during the course of communicating in classroom environment

More Related