You are here:

Non-native Speaker Interaction Management Strategies in a Network-based Virtual Environment
Article

, Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This article investigates the dyad-based communication of two groups of non-native speakers (NNSs) of English involved in real time interaction in a type of text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) tool known as a MOO. The object of this semester long study was to examine the ways in which the subjects managed their L2 interaction during task-based discourse. Four task types were implemented: information-gap, jigsaw, decision-making and opinion-exchange. Analysis of the transcripts indicates that the learners employed a number of communication strategies including definition and clarification requests. In addition, the subjects utilized confirmation and comprehension checks. Further strategies employed were self-correction and non-response. These strategies were more frequent in the opinion-exchange and jigsaw tasks than in the other task types. I found evidence that the above strategies were deployed to maintain target language interaction. Moreover, although instances of negotiation of meaning took place they were infrequent in the corpus as a whole. In this article, I examine the deployment of the above strategies during the project and discuss possible motivations for their utilization. In addition, I investigate the influence of task type on the interaction. The analysis suggests that factors including proficiency levels, task, the nature of real time communication in the online medium and sociocultural factors contributed to the absence of negotiation in much of the data.

Citation

Peterson, M. (2008). Non-native Speaker Interaction Management Strategies in a Network-based Virtual Environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 91-117. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 19, 2022 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Backer, J. A. (1999). Multi-user domain object oriented (MOO) as a high school procedure for foreign language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southwestern University, United States.
  2. Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign language learning using email in a task orientated perspective: Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(4), 565-584.
  3. Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In
  4. Berwick, R., & Ross, S. (1989). Motivation after matriculation: Are Japanese learners of English still alive after exam hell? JALT Journal, 11(2), 193-210.
  5. Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 455-464.
  6. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Retrieved May 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://lit.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html.
  7. Chapelle, C. (1997). Call in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning and Technology ,1(1) 19-43. Retrieved January 14, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/default.html.
  8. Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  9. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networks to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1),17-31.
  10. Donaldson, R. P., & Kotter, M. (1999). Language learning in a MOO: Creating a transoceanic bilingual virtual community. Literary & Linguistic Computing, 14(1), 67-76.
  11. Fernandez-Garcia, M., & Martinez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 279-294.
  12. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: Doubleday. Hall, E. (1981). Beyond Culture. NY: Doubleday.
  13. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffin, D. Tannen, & H.Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford: Blackwell.
  14. Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved October 22, 2005 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html.
  15. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasake, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371. Holmevik, J. R., & Blanchard, M. (2001). Taking the MOO by the horns: How to design, set up, and manage an educational MOO. In C. Hayes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational MOOs (pp. 107-148). Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
  16. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 25(5), 441-454. Kotter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 145-172. Retrieved November 29, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kptter/.
  17. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-166.
  18. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244.
  19. Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: a study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30(3), 275-288.
  20. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Long, M. (1985). Input, interaction and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C.
  21. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426. Meierkord, K. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua-franca interaction. An analysis of non-native- /non-native small talk conversation in English. Linguistik, 5, 1-11. Retrieved October 16, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/index.html.
  22. Murray, D. E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 397-421.
  23. Paramskas, D. (1999). The shape of computer-mediated communication. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL media, design and applications (pp.13-35). Lisse: Swets & Zietlinger.
  24. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language
  25. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second- language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes. Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
  26. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. And Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 115-132.
  27. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating theory and Practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  28. Peterson, M. (2001). MOOs and second language acquisition: Towards a rationale for MOObased learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 443-459.
  29. Pinto, D (1996). What does “schMOOze” mean? Nonnative speaker ineractions on the internet.
  30. Porter, P (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200-224). Rowley: MA: Newbury House.
  31. Schwienhorst, K. (1998). The "third place": Virtual reality applications for second language learning. ReCALL, 10(1), 118-126.
  32. Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Evaluating tandem language learning in the MOO: Discourse repair strategies in a bilingual Internet project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 135-145. Schwienhorst, C. (2004). Native-speaker/non-native speaker discourse in the MOO: Participation and engagement in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 35-50.
  33. Shield, L. (2003). MOO as a language learning tool. In U. Felix, (Ed) Online language learning: Towards best practice. (pp. 97-122). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  34. Shield, L., Weininger, M. J., & Davies, L.B. (1999 ). MOOing in L2: Constructivism and developing learner autonomy for technology-enhanced language learning. C@lling Japan, 8(3). Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://jaltcall.org/cjo/10_99/mooin.htm.
  35. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57.
  36. Swain, M. K., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
  37. Throne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology , 7(2), 38-67. Retrieved August 20th, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html.
  38. Turbee, L. (1999). Classroom practice: MOO, WOO and more – Language learning in virtual environments. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 346-361). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
  39. Van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience: Looking for learning opportunities. Applied Language Learning, 11, 265-287.
  40. Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiating meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-91.
  41. Ware, P. (2005). “Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecommunication. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 64-89. Retrieved September 2nd, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/ware/default.html.
  42. Warner, C. N. (2004). It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning and Technology, 8(2), 69-87. Retrieved August 22nd, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner/default.html.
  43. Warschauer, M. (2000). Online learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kerns (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.41-58). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation and computer-mediated learning Online. In V. Darleguy, A. Ding, & M. Svensson (Eds.), Educational technology in language learning: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Retrieved January 24, 2005, from
  45. Weininger, M. J. & Shield, L. (2003). Promoting Oral Production in a written channel: an investigation of learner language in MOO, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 329-349.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections