1 / 18

Interaction Patterns in Computer- mediated Communication

Interaction Patterns in Computer- mediated Communication. Presentation to NGL 2014 conference Högskolan Dalarna, Sweden 19-20 March , 2014 Jonathan White (jwh@du.se). Ellipsis and Context. Q: Where did you see him ? A: Over there

tamera
Download Presentation

Interaction Patterns in Computer- mediated Communication

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. Interaction Patterns in Computer-mediated Communication Presentation toNGL 2014 conference Högskolan Dalarna, Sweden 19-20 March, 2014 Jonathan White (jwh@du.se)

  2. Ellipsis and Context Q: Wheredid you seehim? A: Over there Merchant (2001, 2004) proposes syntactic ellipsis in such examples Stainton (2006) notesexamples with no syntacticcontext: [father to daughterholding a full cup] Both hands!

  3. Social Autonomy and LearnerAutonomy Languagelearningneeds socio-culturalcontext (sinceVygotsky 1978; seeBax 2011 for recent discussion) Learnerautonomyrequires social autonomy (Benson 2001) Interaction is marker of social autonomy (Warschauer1996)

  4. Strategies for Interaction • Turn-taking(Kitade2000, amongmanyothers) • Greeting/leave-taking • Intersubjectivity (Darhower 2002) • Requests for/provision ofassistance • Continuers • Off-task discussion • Self-/other-initiatedcorrection (Peterson 2009: 305) • Repetition (Cogo 2009: 260; Suvimiitty 2012: chapter 7; Mauranen 2012: chapter 7)

  5. The Data My corpus of chatlogs (ca. 160,000 words) Textchat data in academic context (non-native speakers of English, students on MA in English Linguistics) Survey course in English Linguistics Pre-seminars and seminars (Skype textchat)

  6. FunctionsStudied The functionsidentifiedwere: • Intersubjectivity • Continuers • Correction • Repetition • Comments

  7. Comments Comments come in twotypes: [8:49:10 PM] Student 4 says: In some coferences, seminars , meetings.. men tend to contribute more information and opinion, while women contribute more agreeing Do u think so [8:49:27 PM] Student 1 says: Absolutely right or: [8:07:02 PM] Student 8 says: i type slowly Student 9 … [8:07:20 PM] Student 9 says: ok, no problem Examples ofPeterson’sContinuers, or Comments

  8. Answers to Questions/Follow-onQuestions Similarly, answers to questions and follow-onquestions are clearlyinteractive [9:30:57 PM] Student 7 says: what do u think that he focused on his achivement? ... [9:31:27 PM] Student 5 says: to express his ability [9:31:39 PM] Student 5 says: his capacity [9:03:37 PM] Student 9 says: yes, [9:03:54 PM] Student 9 says: I am frank in giving my own opinion [9:04:32 PM] Student 9 says: and you can see much interruption in w/m's conversation [9:04:34 PM] Student 10 says: so do I my husband said I am too frank so canot be leader [9:04:35 PM] Student 9 says: Why? They are examples of Intersubjectivity (context allows recovery of proposition)

  9. Repair/Correction There are many examples of students repairing mistakes/mistypings [9:35:40 PM] Student 5 says: gender refer to social catagory ... [9:36:03 PM] Student 1 says: Yes, Student 5 ... [9:36:18 PM] Student 5 says: some cases that's tue ... [9:36:21 PM] Student 5 says: true Examples of Peterson’s function of Self-/other-initiated repair (what I have called Corrections)

  10. Repetition Repetition is common for confirming details [9:08:08 PM] Student 7 says: " The term PC originate with left wind-politician, it has now been largely "hijacked" by those on the right. […two contributions missing…] [9:09:12 PM] Student 3 says: in page 40 Student 7? [… two contributions missing…] [9:10:17 PM] Student 7 says: Yes in 40

  11. Repetition, cont. …also repeating analysis: [14:00:07] Teacher 2 says: so, what about question 2 from the handout? what allomorphs are there of PLURAL and PAST morphemes? [14:00:29] Student 25 says: s, es [14:00:30] Student 1 says: regular ; irregular and zero morphs [14:00:31] Student 24 says: s, es ,ed [14:00:33] Student 25 says: ed [14:00:35] Student 20 says: is it -s and -ed [14:00:38] Student 7 says: plural e ,es [14:00:41] Student 10 says: ed , -s [14:00:44] Student 7 says: past ed

  12. Frequencyof Different Functions

  13. Contexts for Frequencies Frequenciesdepend on the discourse context Academic seminars expected to have much Intersubjectivity (question, answer, clarification, negotiation of understanding) Not many examples in Phonetics/Phonology/Syntax (more one-direction communication from teacher) Repetition very high in Morphology (analysis repeated by many students)

  14. Contexts for Frequencies, cont. Comments/Continuers expected in group developing social norms (seen in early sessions, not much in Phonetics/Phonology/Syntax – less discussion, group is cohesive already) Continuers high in Morphology (support on analysis) Very few Corrections (only self-corrections of language errors, others correct analysis)

  15. Discussion My conclusionsare the following: • Intersubjectivity is the most common function – academic discussions are expected to havethis feature • Continuers and Comments are common in order to develop group socially • Repetition is a feature of analysis sessions • Self-correctionoflanguageerrors, butother-correctionofanalysis

  16. References Bax, Stephen. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. IJCALLT 1, 2, 1-15. Benson, Phil. (2001). Autonomy in language learning. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Cogo, Alessia. (2009). Accommodating difference in EFL conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In Anna Mauranen and ElinaRanta (eds.). English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings 254-273. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Darhower, Mark. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. Calico 19, 2, 249-277. Kitade, Keiko. (2000). L2 learners´ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13(2), 143.166.

  17. References, cont. Mauranen, Anna. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Merchant, Jason. (2001). The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merchant, Jason. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy27, 661-738. Peterson, Mark. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 4, 303-321.

  18. References, cont. Stainton, Robert. (2006). Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon. Suviniitty, Jaana. (2012). Lectures in English as a lingua franca: Interactional features. PhD thesis: University ofHelsinki. Vygotsky, Lev. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Warschauer, Mark. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. Calico 13, 2, 7-26.

More Related