Discourse Strategies in Computer-Mediated Communication Between Native and Nonnative English Speakers

Angelica Ribeiro

Abstract


This mixed-methods study investigated the occurrence of discourse strategies during native speakers (NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) synchronous computer-mediate communication (SCMC) to determine how NSs may contribute to NNSs’ subsequent second language (L2) learning. The data collection consisted of SCMC task-based interaction logs from six pairs (NS-NNS), reflection questionnaires, and interviews. This study identified nine different discourse strategies, including strategies that have not been given much attention by the literature on L2 interactions. Findings indicated that the NSs potentially contributed to the NNSs’ L2 development. However, the NSs could have contributed much more if they had taken advantage of the opportunities they had to promote negotiate episodes, expose the NNSs to new input, and encourage them to modify their output. Findings of this study could lead to better language learning task design for SCMC context so that L2 learning opportunities are fully explored. As a result, NNSs will potentially improve their L2 and feel more confident using their language skills meaningfully and authentically in their real-world situations. 


Keywords


computer-mediate communication, discourse strategies, second language learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Altun, N. E., & Yildiz, S. (2013). Effects of different types of tasks on junior ELT students’ use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 17-40.

Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41-71.

Cabaroglu, N., Basaran, S., & Roberts, J. (2010). A comparison between the occurrence of pauses, repetitions and recasts under conditions of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: A preliminary study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 9(2), 14-23.

Chen, W., & Eslami, Z. (2013). Focus on form in live chats. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 147-158.

Ellis, R. (1991, April). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Regional Language Centre Seminar, Singapore.

Gass, M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180-206). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Jackson, D. O. (2011). Convergent and divergent computer-mediated communication tasks in an English for academic purposes course. TESL-EJ, 15(3), 1-18.

Kung, W., & Eslami, Z. R. (2015). Learners of different language proficiency levels and incidental focus on form in synchronous text-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 42.

Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120.

Loewen, S., & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 101-114.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bathia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Nguyen, L. V., & White, C. (2011). The nature of ‘talk’ in synchronous computer-mediated communication in a Vietnamese tertiary EFL context. Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 14-36.

Peterson, M. (2008). Non-native speaker interaction management strategies in a network-based virtual environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 91-117.

Pica, T, Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J . (2009). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In. K. V. D. Brandren, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 171-192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Slavin, R. (2007). Educational research: In an age of accountability. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner

uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33-58.

Sotillo, S. M. (2006). Using instant messaging for collaborative learning: A case study. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(3), 1-7.

Warschauer, M. (2013). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2&3), 7-26.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science (EIJEAS)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ISSN  2378-0991 (online)