View
214
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
1/16
Native speaker/non-na tive speaker
conversation
and the
negotiation
of
comprehensible
input
1
MICHAEL H. LONG
University o f Hawaii at Manoa
Linguistic input probably has to be comp rehensible to the learner if it is to serve
as data for second language acquisition. It is widely assumed that input becomes
comprehensible through the speech modifications of native speakers addressing
non-native speakers of the target language. Recent research on native
speaker/non-native speaker conversation suggests, however, that modifications
of the interactional structure of conversation are more important in this regard.
They are more extensive and more-consistently observed than input modifica-
tions, and often occur when the latter do not. Fifteen devices for the mod ifica-
tion of interaction are describe d. They are of three kinds: strategies, which serve
to avoid conversational trouble, tactics, which are used to repair the discourse
when trouble occurs, and strategies an d tactics, devices which serve both
functions.
1. INTRODUCTION
Recent years have seen at least forty studies of speech by native speakers (NSs)
addressing non-native speakers (NNSs) of the language of communication (for
review, see Long 1980, 1981a).
2
Most researchers report finding the NSs using a
reduced, or 'simplified' variety of their language, commonly observed features of
which include shorter utterances, lower syntactic complexity, and avoidance of
low frequency lexical items and idiomatic express ions (see, e.g. Ar thur et al. 1980;
Freed 1978; Gaies 1977; Henzl 1979). Several of the modifications of NS-NS
norms reflect adaptations made by adults talking to young children, although the
functions of caretaker speech often differ from those of speech to foreigners
(Freed 1978).
Speech to non-native speakers (foreigner talk) is sometimes also ungram-
matical, as w hen obligatory functors, such as articles, copula, or other inflectional
morphology are deleted (Ferguson 197 5; Meisel 1977). Unlike the earlier kinds of
modifications, however, use of this 'broken' form of a language is restricted,
seeming to occur only when two or more of the following conditions are met: (1)
the non-native speaker has very low or no proficiency in the language of com-
munication; (2) the native speaker is, or thinks s/he is, of higher status than the
non-native speaker; (3) the native speaker has considerable prior foreigner talk
experience, but of a very limited kind; and (4) the conversation occurs
spontaneously, i.e. not as part of a laboratory study (Long 198 l c ) .
The considerable interest in research on speech modified for non-native
speakers has largely been due to claims that linguistic input which is understood
by the learner, or 'inta ke' (Cor der 1967), is the primary da ta for second language
acquisition (SLA) (see, e.g. Hatch 1979; Krashen 1980; Larsen-Freeman 1979).
It is widely assumed (although yet to be shown empirically) that at least some of
the speech modifications referred to above are what serve to make input com-
prehensible. Recent research on NS-NNS conversation, however, suggests that
while understanding may indeed be facilitated by encoding in shorter, syntactic-
ally less complex utterances, speech modifications alone are rarely sufficient.
Native speakers also make a lot of adjustments to the interactional structure of
Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No . 2.
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
2/16
MICHA EL H. LONG 127
conversation, and it is modifications of the latter sort that are greater, more con-
sistently observed, and probably more important for providing comprehensible
input. Since the input/interaction distinction (Long 1980) is a fairly recent one, a
brief clarification of the terms is in order.
2 . MODIFIED INPUT AND MODIFIED INTERACTION
The literature on both first and second language acquisition (SLA) often conflates
two related but distinguishable phenomena: input to, and interaction with a
language acquirer. Input refers to the linguistic forms (morphemes, words, utter-
ances)—the streams of speech in the air—directed at the non-native speaker.
Thus , in terms of input we may w ish to describe (1) and (2):
1 Wh at 's the boy's name?
2 The boy, what's his name?
as two utterances with a mean length of 5.5 words (or 4.5, depending on how we
are scoring contracted forms), a mean syntactic complexity score of 1 (neither
contains more than one S-node), and with (between them) two instances each of
three grammatical morphemes, article, copula, and possessive, two verbs marked
temporally for present, none for non-present, and so on. Suppose, however, that
(1) and (2) occurred sequentially in NS-NNS conversation, as in (3):
3 NS : Wha t 's the boy's name?
NNS : Uh?
NS : The boy, what 's his name ?
Describing the same utterances in terms of interaction, we attend to the functions
they serve in conversation. We might now code both as Wh questions, and (2) as
a self-repetition, and perhaps as a topic-comme nt construction.
When describing linguistic input, therefore, we are considering only the forms
that the learner hears; analysis of interaction means describing the functions of
those forms in (conversational) discourse. Statements about differences in
linguistic input to native speakers and non-native speakers involve direct com-
parisons of the absolute or relative frequencies of certain forms in two corpora.
Statements about differences in the interactional structure of NS-NS and
NS-NNS conversation first imply identification of the conversational function of
forms within each corpus, followed by comparisons of the absolute or relative
frequencies of those functions acros s c orpor a. The analysis of input also involves
a consideration of the native s peake r's speech in isolation. Analysis of interaction
necessitates taking the non-native speaker's participation into account, for
identification of turns in conversation as, e.g. other-repetitions, confirmation
checks, comprehension checks, expansions and clarification requests, is only
possible by considering the relationships which utterances enter into with those
preceding and /or following them , including those by the non-native interlocutor.
Distinguishing input and interaction at one stage in the analysis of NS-NNS
conversation does not imply permanent separation. It seems clear, after all, that
several features of each are often related. Thus, Long (1981b) found a native
speaker preference for encoding topic-initiating moves as questions statistically
significantly more often when addressing non-native speakers than other native
speake rs. Since English ma rks simple past tense on the auxiliary (did) in questions
and on the main verb in statements, SL acquirers tend to hear the unmarked
infinitive form more often than native speakers, a factor which may prove to be
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
3/16
128 NATIVE SPEAK ER/NON -NATIVE SPEAKER CONV ERSATION
related to the relatively late acquisition of what, in English, is a simple, highly
regular form-meaning inflectional relationship.
While input-inte ractio n relationships of this sort clearly exist, it is equally clear
that modification in input and in interaction sometimes occurs independently.
Consider the following conversational fragments:
NS
NN S
NS
NNS
NS
NNS
NS
NNS
NS
NS
What time you finish?
Ten o'clock
Wh en did you finish?
Um?
When did you finish?
Ten clock
Ten o'clock?
Yeah
Wh en did you finish?
Ten
(4) shows the type of exchange typical of some observational studies of foreigner
talk, e.g. that between native speaker factory foremen and migrant workers. The
native speaker uses an uninverted Wh question lacking do-support or tense
marking. The question is understood first time, however, probably because of its
routine nature, and the worker's reply closes what is, in interactional terms, a
norm al tw o-part e xchange, as shown by the NS—NS equivalent in (6). Th e input
to the non-na tive speaker in (4) is modified,
3
that is, but the interactional structure
of the con versation is not. (5) shows just the oppo site, and is, incidentally, typical
of NS-NNS conversational data from the quasi-experimental laboratory studies.
After the native speaker's initial question fails, s/he uses an exact self-repetition,
which succeeds in eliciting an appropriate response from the non-native speaker.
The response is sufficiently ambiguous, however, to make the native speaker
employ a confirmation check
(Ten o clock?),
which serves to establish that the
non-native speaker's reply had in fact been correctly heard. The six-turn exchange
involves several modifications of the interactional structure of (6), but not of the
inpu t
Thus far, the two constructs, input and interaction, have been posited on the
basis of hypothetical examples and isolated fragments of data. There follows a
brief summary report of one part of a larger study whose findings provide
quantified em pirical suppor t for the distinction.
3 . AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF NS-NNS CONVERSATION: INPUT AND INTERACTION
4
Method
Controlling for sex and prior foreigner talk experience, 48 adult native speakers
and 16 adult non-native speakers from a variety of first language backgrounds
were randomly assigned to form 32 dyads, 16 NS-NS and 16 NS-NNS, in a
matched-pairs design. Each dyad performed the same six tasks in the same order.
These were: (1) informal conversation, (2) vicarious narrative, (3) giving instruc-
tions for two communication games, (4) playing the first game, (5) playing the
second game, and (6) discussing the supposed purpose of the research. About 25
minutes of conversation by each dyad were transcribed for analysis. In testing one
of the larger study's three main research questions, NS-NS and NS-NNS con-
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
4/16
MICHAEL H. LONG
129
versations were compared on 16 features of input and interaction. The findings
are presented in Tables 1-6.
Table I: Four measures of linguistic input across tasks (data from Long 1980)
S S
S S
Redefined
1 Average length of T-urats
in words
2
S-nodes
per
T-unit
3 Type-token ratio (tasks 1 and 2)
4 (a) lexical frequency of nouns
(b) lexical frequency of verbs
n
2224
2224
X
8.36
1.51
.71
426.68
3886.91
n
2369
2369
X
7.60
1.42
.65
313 76
4192.96
1 ^
16
16
8
8
8
T = 2 0
T = 2 8
T = 4.5
X = 6
X
=
3
V
.05 (n.s.)
on task 1 (data from
Total
100
100
Table 3: Numbers and proportions of present and non-present temporal markings
on verbs on task 1
Present Non-present
n n
NS -NS (n = 16) 245 68.06 115 31.94
NS-N NS (n = 16) 264 79.76 67 20.24
X
2
= 11.58,
df=l ,p< .001
Total
n
360 100
331 100
Results
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show values across all six tasks for six features of input in
NS-NS and NS-NNS conversation. The statistical significance of differences
between the two corpora was calculated using Wilcoxon's matched-pairs signed-
ranks test (variables 1-3), the sign test (variable 4a and b), and the chi-square test
(variables 5 and 6).
It can be seen that differences on only two of the six input variables attained
significance at the requ ired level (oc = .005)*. In input to N N Ss , the avera ge length
of T-units
6
was sh orter (T = 20, p
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
5/16
13 0
NATIVE SPEAKER/NON-NATIVE SPEAKER CONVERSATION
(higher) proportion of copulas to main verbs—generally operated in the same
direction, but did not obtain significance at the required level.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 show values across all six tasks for ten features of interac-
tion in NS-NS and NS-NNS conversation. The statistical significance of differ-
ences between the two corpora was calculated using the chi-square test (Tables 4
and 5) and Wilcoxon's signed-ranks matched-pairs test (Table 6).
Table 4: Numbers and proportions of questions, statements and imp eratives in T-
units on all tasks
Questions
Statements
Imperatives Total
NS-NS (n = 16)
NS-NNS (n
= 16)
449
728
20.19
29.49
1740
1679
78.24
68.00
35
62
1.57
2.51
2224
2469
100
100
2
=
62.12 ,df=2 ,p
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
6/16
MICHAEL H. LONG 131
p
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
7/16
132 NATIVE SPEAKER/NON-NATIVE SPEAKER CONVERSATION
planning by the native speaker. They tend to govern the way s/he conducts entire
conversations, and primarily concern wha t is talked about (conversational topic),
but affect
how
topics
are
treated,
too. I
call these conversational strategies.
Modifications motivated by the need to fix up the conversa tion when trou ble
arises seem to be spontaneous solutions to immediate, short-term problems. They
affect primarily how topics are talked a bo ut I call these tactics for discourse
repair. A subset of the modifications of each type, strategies and tactics, is used
both
to
avoid
and
repair trouble,
i.e. as
both strategy
and
tactic,
but
most
modifications
in
this group tend
to
serve
one or the
other function mor e often.
Some examples
of
devices used
as
strategies and /or tactics
are
shown
in
the table
below.
Table
:
Devices used by native speakers to modify the interactional
structure ofNS-NNS conversation
trategies S) Tactics T)
(for avoidin g trouble) (for repairing trouble)
51 Relinquish topic-control
Tl
Accept unintentional topic-switch
52 Select salient topics
T2
Requ est clarification
53 Treat topic s briefly
T3
Confirm own com prehension
54 Make new topics salient
T4
Tolerate ambiguity
55 Check NN S's comprehension
trategies
and
Tactics
ST)
(for avoiding
and
repairing trou ble)
ST1 Use slow pace
ST4
Decom pose topic-comm ent constructions
ST2 Stress key words
STS
Repeat own utterances
ST3 Pause before key words
ST6
Repeat other's utterances
4.1 Strategies
SI . Relinquish topic-control
Assuming there
is no
pressure upon them
to do
otherwise (e.g. from the na ture
of
the task), native speakers will often attempt to pass control of current and sub-
sequent conversational topics
to the
non-native speak er. Occasio nally, they
do
this explicitly,
as
in (7):
7 NS: OK Now you know the question tha t 's coming W hat hav e you what do
you think
of
the United States
or the
American people
or
whatever
it is
that interests you or you noticed?
Implicit willingness to talk about whatever the non-native spea ker feels comfort-
able with is pervasive, however, and is what often seems to lie behind the so-called
'or-choice' question (Hatch 1978), of which both (7) and (8) are exam ples:
8 NS: Are the islands the sam e— do they look same? . . as Japan as . the country
in Japan? Are the houses, for example, are the houses the same on
O s i m a . . as say in the country . . Sapporo o r (Akairo)? D o the people talk
the same
or
do the houses look the sam e?
. . . . Or
are the trees the same?
As Hatch points out, or-choice questions offer the non-native speaker a series of
potential topics to talk ab out, often also serving to suggest possible answers to the
'questions' themselves. Of course, native speakers use or-choice questions, too
(and, at times, all the devices discussed here), when talking to other native
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
8/16
MICHAEL H. LONG 133
speakers. Their use in NS-NNS conversation seems to be much more frequent,
however. One recent study of informal encounters between 36 adult native
speakers of English and 36 young Japanese adults (Long 1981b) found that in
NS-NNS conversations, of a total of 356 Yes/No questions, 75 (21 per cent)
were or-choice questions, compared with 10 (10 per cent) of 85 Yes/No questions
in a NS -N S corpus (x
2
= 6.16, df = 1, p
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
9/16
134 NATIVE SP EAKER/NO N- NATIVE SP EAKER CONVERSATION
N N S
N S
N N S
N S
N S
N N S
N S
I come from (Ngunga) Tokyo near- near Tokyo
A ha
But I live in Tokyo
Aha Do you study?
Or
N o
do you work
The native speaker closes down the previous topic and introduces two more
(where the non-native speaker is from and what she does there) in the space of
eight very sh ort turns containing only two topic-continuing moves in T-units (both
produced by the non-native speaker).
Two studies have provided data suggesting that brief treatment of topics is
common in NS-NNS conversat ion. Arthur et al. (1980) had native speaker and
non-native speaker telephone callers ask identical questions of airline reservation
staff concerning the nature of particular kinds of commercial aircraft. Non-native
callers consistently elicited fewer information bits than did native speakers. Long
(1981b) compared the number of topic-continuing moves in NS-NS and
NS-NNS conversation elicited by 50 sequential topic-initiating moves in each
corpus, the NS-NNS data again involving the 36 American-Japanese dyads in
informal face-to-face conversation. For 50 topic-initiating moves, there were 606
topic-continuations with a native speaker interlocutor, but only 211 with non-
native speakers (t = 5.768, df = 9 8, p
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
10/16
MICHA EL H. LONG 135
Using a slow pace (ST1), and especially stressing key words (ST2) and pausing
for half a beat or a be at before or after them (ST3) also boost saliency:
14 N S : How long have you been at UCL A?
15 NS : Aha What year are you? . What yea r in college are you in?
The last three devices are also used, and more frequently so, as tactics, however
(as indicated by 'S T) .
Perhaps the most noticeable effort to make topics salient is the use of questions
to encode topic-nominating m oves, as in (7), (8), (10) and (1 6):
16 N S : S o you g- are you going to con- continue at UC LA ? O r are you going
to change schools?
The self-correction, 'So you g-', in (16) seems to be motivated by the wish to
include an extra question marker, subject-auxiliary inversion. A previous study
(Long 1981b) found a remarkable 96 per cent of 50 topic-initiating moves
examined were encoded as questions in NS-NNS conversation, as compared to
62 per cent of 50 such moves in NS-NS conversation (x
2
= 17.54, df = 1,
p
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
11/16
136 NATIVE SP EAKER/NON- NATIVE SP EAKER CONVERSATION
18 NS
NN S
NS
19 NS
N N S
NS
Uh what does uh what does your father do in uh you're from Kyoto,
right?
Yeah
Yeah What does your father do in Kyoto?
When do you go to the uh Santa M onica? . . . You say you go fishing
in Santa M onica, right?
Yeah
When?
In exchange s of this type, the native speaker wishes to ask the non-native speaker
to comment on a new topic. In (18), where decomposition is operating as a
strategy, the native speaker checks
himself
self-correcting after 'what does your
father do in', and first establishes the new topic by stating it in isolation from the
request for commentary. As here, and also in (19), this is often done with rising
intonation, and often with a tag (right?), asking for confirmation that the topic has
been established (cf. the 'try-marking' intonation noted in Sachs and
Schegloff
1974).
Then, w hen the requested confirmation is given, the comm ent, in the form
of a question about the new topic, is stated or, when decomposition serves as a
tactic, as in (19), restated. Decomposition is clearly a more complex device,
whether used as a strategy or as a tactic, than others we have discussed. It has not
occurred as frequently as others in data ana lysed so far, and seems to be confined
to non-native speakers with considerable prior foreigner talk experience when it
does occur (Long, in press).
5 5 : Check non-native speaker s comprehension
Comprehension checks, such as Right?, OK? an d Do you understand?, clearly
show an effort on the part of native speakers to anticipate and prevent a break-
down in communication. They are used significantly more frequently with non-
native speakers than in NS-NS conversation, as was reported earlier (Table 6).
4.2 Tactics
Tl:Accept unintentional topic-switch
When native speakers fail to establish a new topic, and a communication break-
down ensues , they will sometimes dro p the topic altogether. One example of
this
is
the tactic of accepting an unintentional topic-switch by the non-native speaker, as
in (20):
20 NS : Ar e you going to visit San Franscisco ? Or Las Vegas?
NN S : Yes I went to Disneyland and to Knottsb erry Far m
NS : Oh yeah?
The non-native speaker misunderstands the question as one concerning her
previous sightseeing visits, and the native speaker repa irs the discourse by treating
the inappropriate response as a topic-nomination. I have no quantified data for
T l ,
and it does not seem to occur very frequently. It is clearly related to SI
(relinquish topic-control) and T4 (tolerate ambiguity), and again seems impres-
sionistically to be used more frequently by native speakers with considerable prior
foreigner talk experience. Compare its success in (20) with the failure, in (21), of
an inexperienced native speaker, who persisted with the original topic without ever
getting a real resp onse to his question:
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
12/16
MICHAEL H. LONG 137
21 NS : Um . . . how long do you think or how long do you want to wait to be
able to speak and read so you can go to college? What—two years?
One year?
NN S : One year?
NS : One year? Do you think in one year that you can learn to speak and
read well enough to go to college? . . . D o you understand w hat I'm
what I'm what I'm I'm going for?
NNS : College?
7 2 : Request clarification
Clarification requests are defined as any expression by a native speaker designed
to elicit clarification of the interlocu tor's preceding utterance(s). They are m ostly
formed by questions, but unlike confirmation checks, may consist of Wh or
Yes/No questions as well as uninverted (intonation) and tag questions, for they
require that the interlocutor either furnish new information or recode information
previously given. Unlike confirmation checks, in other words, there is no
presupposition on the speaker's part that s/he has understood or heard the other's
previous utterance(s). While questions are the most frequent form of clarification
request, they are also effected by statements like / don t follow, and imperatives
like Try again. Long (1980) found clarification checks were used statistically
significantly more often in NS-NNS than in NS-NS conversation, as shown
earlier (Table 6).
T3 : C onfirm own comprehension
Confirmation checks are defined as any expressions by the native speaker
immediately following an utterance by the interlocutor which are designed to elicit
confirmation that the utterance has been correctly heard or understood by the
speaker. Thus, The man? following Next to the man by the other speaker is a
confirmation check. Confirmation checks are always formed by rising intonation
questions, with or without a tag (The man? or The man, right?). They always
involve repetition of all or part of the other's preceding utterance. They are
answerable by a simple confirmation (Yes, Mmhm) in the event that the preceding
utterance was correctly heard or understood, and require no new information
from the interlocutor. Long (1980) found confirmation checks to be more fre-
quent in the N S- NN S than in the NS -N S corpus (see Table 6).
T4: Tolerate ambiguity
Another tactic used by native speakers to sustain conversation is to tolerate
ambiguo us u tterances by the non-native speaker. The no n-native's difficulties with
the SL pronunciation may make items impossible to hear clearly, and even
correctly pronounced items may be semantically anomalous, or inappropriate.
Acceptance of an unintentional topic-switch is an extreme example of this, but
many other semantic miscues or non sequiturs are all allowed to pass which do
not result in changes of
topic.
These often take the form of unsatisfactory replies
to questions , as in (22):
22 NNS
NS
N N S
N S
N N S
NS
Turkey I like
Really? Where did you eat turkey?. Where do you eat (the) turkey?
. . . Uhm in (university restaurant)
Here?
Yes sandwich
(.h) Turkey sandwiches, yeah
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
13/16
138 NATIVE SPEAKER /NON-NATIVE SPEAKER CONVERSATION
While impressionistically pervasive in NS -N N S conversa tion, T4 is difficult, if
not impossible to quantify, for ambiguity clearly exists in all conversation, and
varies in degree according, among other factors, to the amount of common know-
ledge shared by speakers. There are some clear cases, that is, but a lot of border-
line ones, too .
4. 3 Strategies and tactics
ST1-ST4 have already been dealt with in the role they play as strategies. They
function in the same way as tactics, but then follow a breakdown in communica-
tion indicated by inappropriate silence, an inappropriate or incomprehensible
utterance, or an appeal for assistance on the part of the NNS (one or more of
which must occur immediately preceding any native speaker utterance which is to
be classified as a tactic).
ST5: Repeat own utterances
Self-repetitions are pervasive in NS -N N S conversation, and ar e used significantly
more often than when the interlocutor is another native speaker (Table 6). As
defined in that study (Long 1980), they include partial or complete, and exact or
semantic repetition (i.e. paraphrase) of any of the speaker's utterances which
occurred within five conversational turns (by both speakers) of the turn contain-
ing the repetition. Distinguishing repetitions and paraphrases may prove impor-
tant for predicting certain aspects of SLA, but I know of no study to date which
has done so and quantified its data.
ST6: R epeat other s utterances
Other-repetitions in Long (1980) were defined in the same way as self-repetitions,
except for the obvious difference concerning which speaker's utterances were
involved. Again, as reported in Table 6, other-repetitions were statistically
significantly more frequent in the N S- N N S than in the NS- N S corpus.
4. 4 Summary
The fifteen devices described above, five strategies, four tac tics, and six that serve
as both, are some of the interactional resources open to native speakers in con-
versation with non-native speakers. Their use goes some way to making linguistic
input comprehensible to the SL acquirer, as evidenced by the fact that without
them communication, conversation, breaks down; with their use conversation is
possible and is sustained. Non-native speakers understand and so can take part
appropriately.
No claim is made, however, that these fifteen devices are anything like an
exhaustive list of the options available to native speakers. Some may also be
language- or culture-specific, and more frequent in the particular kinds of
NS-NNS conversations that provided data for the studies from which they were
derived. These a re issues which can o nly be resolved by further em pirical work.
CONCLUSION
It is widely assumed, and probably rightly, that samples of a SL heard but not
understood by a would-be acquirer of that language serve no useful purpose in the
SLA process. Only comprehensible input will do. The question is, how does that
input become comprehensible to the learner? Modifications of the input itself
almost certainly help. They are not, however, very consistendy observed in studies
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
14/16
MICHAEL H. LONG 139
that seek them, and they are certainly not the only means. Modifications in the
interactional structure of conversation are greater, more consistently found, and
probably more important. They even seem to occur when linguistic input is non-
significantly different in most respe cts from tha t in N S -N S conversation.
The modifications of interaction that native speakers make are quite numerous,
diverse, and apparently prone to vary with certain characteristics of the speaker,
such as his or her prior foreigner talk experience. Certain pattern s in their use can
be observed, however. Some, such as selecting salient topics and treating them
briefly, appear to be used only as strategies, to avoid conversational trouble.
Others, such as acceptance of unintentional topic-switches and clarification
requests, serve as tactics, to repair the discourse when trouble occurs. Further
research is needed to establish the validity of this preliminary classification, and
then to test ho w variation in the extent and nature of linguistic input to the learner,
and in the conversational style which succeeds or fails in making it comprehens-
ible, affect the co urse, rate, and ultimate attainment of
the
SLA process .
(Received May 1982)
NOTES
1
This is a slightly amended version of a paper appearing (in German translation) in a special
issue on second language acquisition of
Zeitschrift Jur Literaturwissenschafl und Linguistik
Vol.
45 , 1981. The author gratefully acknowledges the publishers of LiLi and the editors of Vol. 45 ,
W. Klein and i. Weissenborn, for permission to produce the English version.
2
As used throughout this paper, the terms 'native speaker' (NS) and 'non-native speaker' (NNS )
refer to speakers for whom the language of com m unication is/is not their mother tongue. In other
words, as used here, and also in the studies to be reported upon, the native/non-native distinction is
an absolute one. However, many of the linguistic and conversational resources attributed to NSs
addressing non-natives are undoubtedly available to other classes of speakers, too. Thus, some of
the NS speech modifications to be described are also well-attested characteristics of caretaker
speech and of speech to the mentally retarded. They may also turn out to appear in language
addressed to native speakers of a non-standard variety of that language, or, indeed, in language
addressed to any listener (perceived as) less in control of the variety of language being used, whether
or not he or she is a NS. If the ability to adapt linguistic performance to an interlocutor is a uni-
versal (non-language-specific) part of linguistic competence, non-native speakers should also be able
to modify their interlanguage when using it to address other NNSs who are of lower proficiency.
Some or all of the linguistic and conversational resources, that is, may well be available to speakers
when differences between their own and their interlocutors' abilities are not absolute, but relative.
1
The exam ple of modified input given in (4) involves deletion of did and hence, ungrammatical
speech. 'Modified' should not be equated with 'ungramm atical', however. Most modifications do not
result in ungra m m atically, taking the form of, e.g. lower syntactic com plexity in a corpus of speech
addressed to NNSs compared with that in a corpus of NS-NS talk. Modification within the bounds
of grammaticality is measured in terms of statistically significant differences in the relative fre-
quencies of som e linguistic featu res), e.g. S-nodes per T-unit, between the two corpora.
4
The research reported here was part of a larger study conducted for the author's PhD disserta-
tion at UCL A (L ong 1980). For their constructive criticism and support throughout, I would like to
acknowledge the debt I owe the members of my committee: Professors Roger Andersen, Russell
Campbell, Susan Curtiss, Gerry Mahoney, John Schumann, and Noreen Webb, and especially to its
chairperson, Evelyn Hatch. None has seen this paper, however, or is responsible for any errors of
fact or interpretation it may contain.
5
The unusually high alpha level of .005 was used in order to minimize the likelihood of chance
findings of significance when so ma ny variables and hypo theses (30 in the full study) were examined
on the sam e data s et This procedure, of course, also increases the likelihood of a type-2 error, i.e. of
not finding significant d ifferences when differences in fact obta in.
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
15/16
140 NATIVE SPEAKE R/NON-NATIVE SPEAKER CONVERSATION
' A T-unit (Hunt 1970) is defined as 'a main clause plus all subordinate clauses and nonclausal
structures attached to or embedded in it'.
1
Type-token ratio, a measure of lexical diversity, was calculated by dividing the total number of
different wo rds (types) by the total number of wo rds (tokens).
REFERENCES
Arthur, B., R. Weiner, M. Culver, Y. J. Lee
an d
D. Thomas.
1980. 'The register of
impersonal discourse to foreigners: verbal adjustments to foreign accent' in D. Larsen-
Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Langu age Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Corder, S. P.
1967. 'The significance of learners' errors'.
International Review of Applied
Linguistics,
5/4: 161-70.
Cross, T.
1977. 'Mothers' speech adjustments: the contribution of selected child listener
variables' in C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds.).
Talking to Children: Language Input
and Acquisition.
Lon don: Cambridge University Pres s.
Ferguson, C. A.
1975. 'Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk'.
Anthropological Linguistics,
1 7 : 1 - 1 4 .
Freed, B. F.
1978. 'Foreigner Talk: A Study of Speech Adjustments Made by Native
Speakers of English in Conversation with Non-native Speakers'. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Gaies ,
S. 1977. 'The nature of linguistic input in formal second language learning:
Linguistic and communicative strategies in teachers' classroom language' in H. D.
Brown, C. A. Yorio, and R. H. Crymes (eds.).
On TESOL 77.
Washington, D.C.:
T E S O L .
Hatch, E.
1978. 'Discourse analysis and second language acquisition' in E. Hatch (ed.).
Second Langu age Acquisition: A Book of Readings.
Rowley, Mas s.: Newbury House.
Hatch, E.
1979. 'Simplified Input and Second Language Acquisition'. Paper presented at
the winter meeting of the LSA, December, 1979, Los Angeles, CA.
Henzl, V. M.
1979. 'Foreign talk in the classroom'.
International Review of Applied
Linguistics, Mil:
159—67.
Hunt, K. W.
1970. 'Syntactic maturity in school children and adults'.
Monograph s of the
Society for Research in Child Development,
53/1 (Serial No. 134).
Hytnes, D.
1972. 'Models of the interaction of language and social life' in J. J. Gumperz
and D. Hymes (eds.).
Directions in Sociolinguistics.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Krashen, S. D.
1980. The input hypothe sis' in J. E. Alatis (ed.).
Current Issues in
Bilingual Education.
Washington, D. C. : George town University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D.
1979. 'The Importance of Input in Second Language Acquisition'.
Paper presented at the winter meeting of the LSA, December, 1979, Los Angeles, CA.
Long, M. H.
1980. 'Inpu t, Interaction, and Second Lang uage Acquisition'. Unpublished
Ph .D .
dissertation , University of California, L os Angeles.
Long, M. H.
1981a. 'Input, interaction, and second language acquisition' in H. Winitz
(ed.).
Native Langu age and Foreign Language Acquisition. A nnals of the New York
Academy of Sciences
379: 259-78 .
Long, M. H.
1981b. 'Questions in foreigner talk discourse'.
Language Learning,
3 1 / 1 :
135-57. .
Long, M. H.
1981c. 'Variation in Linguistic Input for Second Language Acquisition'.
Paper presented at the European-North American Workshop on Cross-Linguistic
Second Language Acquisit ion Research, Lake Arrowhead, Ca., September 7-14,1981.
To appear in the Workshop Proceedings, R. W. Andersen (ed.).
Long, M. H. In
press. 'Prior foreigner talk experience and the negotiation of conversation
with non-native speakers'.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
5/2.
8/18/2019 Long Negotiation Applied Linguistics 1983 LONG 126 41
16/16
MICHA EL H. LONG 141
Meisel, J. M. 1977. 'Linguistic simplification: A study of immigrant workers' speech and
foreigner talk' in S. P. Corder and E. Roulet (eds.).
Actes du 5eme colloque de
linguistique appliquee de Neucha tel.
Paris: AIMAV/Didier.
Sachs, H. and E. A.
Schegloff.
1974. 'Two preferences in the organization of reference to
persons in conversation and their interactions' in N. H. Avison and R. J. Wilson (eds.).
Ethnomethodology, Labeling Theory and Deviant Behavior.
London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Sachs,
H., E. A. Schegloff and G . Jefferson. 1974. 'A simp lest systema tics for the
organization of turn-taking for co nversation'.
Language,
50/4 : 696-735 .
Scarcella, R. and C. Higa. 1982. 'Input and age differences in second language acquisi-
tion' in S. D. Krashen, R. Scarcella, and M. H. Long (eds.).
Child-Adult Differences in
Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, Mass .: Newbury H ouse.
Wolfson, N. 1976. 'Speech events and natural speech: Some implications for
sociolinguistic methodology'.
Language in Society,
5 /2 : 189-209 .
Recommended