Upload
chico
View
45
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Exploring the Linguistic Complexity of On-Task and Off-Task Interaction During Chat. Shannon Sauro University of Texas at San Antonio [email protected]. Just What Kind of Language Are Students Producing during Task-Based CMC?. http://www.ishkur.com/posters. Style of Chat. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Exploring the Linguistic Complexity of On-Task and Off-Task Interaction
During ChatShannon Sauro
University of Texas at San [email protected]
Just What Kind of Language Are Students Producing during Task-Based
CMC?
http://www.ishkur.com/posters
Style of Chat
“No normal person, and no normal community, is limited to a single style of speech …”
(Hymes, 1974: 30)
Why assume that there is only a single style of chat?
Language Within the Same Chat
Mina Malmö:
The pollution in Sweden is not that bad, but even thoug the industry not letting out that much industrial waste we still have waste coming from countrys surrounding us
Steve Penn:
good, but one of your nouns could use the zero article.
During the Task
Mina Malmö:
Steve Penn:
1,8 kids
on average
Mina Malmö:
Steve Penn:
yes.
how is it in USA?
After the Task
Task-Based Research in Chat
Tasks As the Object of Research– Negotiation of Meaning Studies
• (e.g., Blake, 2000; Pelletieri, 2000; Smith, 2003)
Tasks As Data Elicitation Tools– Quality and quantity of self-repair
• (Smith, 2008)– Comparison of corrective feedback
effectiveness• (Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Sachs & Suh,
2007; Sauro, 2009)– Comparison of ACMC and SCMC
• (Sotillo, 2000)
The Study
Research Questions
1. Is the lexical diversity of on-task interaction greater than that of off-task interaction during chat?
2. Is the syntactic complexity of on-task interaction greater than that of off-task interaction during chat?
The Participants
Collaborative Writing Task: Environmental Issues
Word Bank
nature global warming
space nuclear power
mankind industrial waste
carbon dioxide pollution
wind energy industry
On-Task Language
“Learner discourse related either directly or indirectly to completion of the assigned task” (Keller-Lally, 2007, p. 105)
• Opinion exchange using the target words• Task meta-talk• Negotiation of meaning• Self-repair moves• Responses to feedback moves by interlocutors
Off-Task Language
• Exchanges that preceded the beginning of the task • opening sequences, introductions
• Responses to interlocutor questions not that did not relate to completing the task
• tangential topics, personal or general questions
• Exchanges following statements of the task being finished,
• closing sequences, personal or general questions
Transition from On to Off Task Chat
Diana Malmö:
Diana Malmö:Anna Penn:Anna Penn:Diana Malmö:Diana Malmö:Anna Penn:Diana Malmö:Diana Malmö:
Industry is to blame for much of the polluting.=)I couldn’t agree more!Great job!thanks!so how’s the us today? where are you?What is your major?english.and you?
Tangential Topics
Carlos Penn: What if a missile hits a nuclear power plant? What happens?
Carsten Malmö: Because of how the core of the powerplant is built
Carsten Malmö: Nothing would happen actually
Carlos Penn: Is it stabalized or something?
Carlos Penn: stabilized, I mean
Carsten Malmö: I did study science, but I’m not sure how to explain it in english to be honest :)
Carlos Penn: Is that all the words?
Carsten Malmö: two to go
Repairing the Task
Susan Penn: what’s it called in Swedish?
MC Malmö: It’s okay. I don’t really know myself
MC Malmö: Wind maler perhaps haha… no I really don’t know
Susan Penn: nevermind – that’s okay!
Susan Penn: which other words can we discuss?
RQ1: Calculating Lexical Diversity
• Excluded tokens:– Use of the L1, participants names, laughter (e.g. “haha”),
emoticons, numbers
• Included tokens:– Abbreviations (e.g., ex, etc.), texting shorthand (np),
ontomatopoetic formulations of surprise (oh, ah)
• Determining types:– Different inflections of the same word (industry, industries)
and use of contracted forms (ya’ll, he’s) were treated as different types
• Index of Guiraud:– The ratio of types to the square root of tokens
Lexical Diversity: Descriptive Data
Tokens M SD Min Max
On-Task
Off-Task
Total
3851
3318
7169
160.46
138.25
54.55
87.98
53
36
307
344
N= 24
MLT On-Task: 10.05
MLT Off-Task: 7.65
Results: Lexical Diversity
Tokens Types Mean Index of
G
SD
On-Task
Off-Task
Total
3851
3318
7169
2244
2125
4369
7.38
7.47
0.83
1.56
N= 24
RQ2: Determining Syntactic Complexity
• Analysis of Speech Unit (AS-unit):– “a single speaker’s utterance consisting of an independent clause
or sub-clausal unit with any subordinate clause(s) associated with either” (Foster, Tonkyn & Wigglesworth, 2000, p. 365)
• Clause:– “a finite or non-finite verb element plus at least one other clause
element (Subject, Object, Complement or Adverbial)” (p.366)
• Measure of Complexity:– Ratio of clauses (independent and subordinate) to AS-units
RQ2: Syntactic Complexity Coding
Examples
Natalie Malmö : |When we use others alternative fuels like gasoline we are putting the global warming at risk.| (2 clauses, 1 AS-unit)
Hanna Malmö: *|on or over?| (0 clauses, 1 AS-unit)
Lena Malmö: |You’ve been very helpful… |Must be hard chatting with people that aren’t very good at English.| (4 clauses, 2 AS-units)
Results: Syntactic Complexity
Clauses AS Units
Mean C/AS Ratio
SD
On-Task
Off-Task
Total
449
542
991
420
600
1020
1.06
.93
0.32
.29
N= 24
Limitations and Future Directions
• Use of screen capture video to record the full range of learner chat production (e.g. Smith, 2008; Smith & Sauro, 2009)
Limitations and Future Directions
• Identifying measures of complexity and accuracy that best reflect the nature of CMC language
• Analysis of Chat Unit?
• Evaluating lexical diversity through comparison to word frequency lists (Daller, Van Hout & Treffers-Daller, 2003)
Limitations and Future Directions
Comparison of on-task and off-task chat for less proficient learners and interaction during different types of tasks
• Clarissa : 3. richtig? Samuel : 4. ? Clarissa : ich weiss nicht Samuel : Falsch Clarissa : ja Clarissa : 5. richtig? Samuel : ja Samuel : 6. Falsch Clarissa : ja
Internet Oriented Tasks
• Tasks that more closely resemble the technology-mediated tasks and tools that language learners actually engage with outside the classroom
References
Baron, N. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press.Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html Crystal , D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Daller, H., Van Hout, Roeland, & Treffers-Daller, Jeanine. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of
bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222.Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied
Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. Keller-Lally, A.M. (2007). Effects of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous
computer-mediated communication. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United States-Texas.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer- assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.
References cont.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, R., & Suh, B., (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In. A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1) 96-120. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 85-103. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/smith/default.html
Smith, B., & Sauro, S. (2009). Interruptions in chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 229-247.Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Available from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Werry , C.C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.