LA HORIZONTALIDAD, LA AUTONOMÍA, LA COOPERACIÓN Y LAS EMOCIONES EN LAS REDES SOCIALES

Second language acquisition (SLA) plays a significant role in building the theory of how students learn language. This in turn influences teacher education programs which supplies teachers with recommendations of how to teach more effectively in the classroom. Research in SLA focuses on what students do to learn and ultimately acquire a second language systematically through classroom instruction. Kasper (1997) succinctly explains the commitment of SLA as ‘A’ stands for acquisition. Error correction of non-native utterances is important as the status and roles of the

participants are clear: the expert and the novice learner.

SLA is helpful for understanding NS-NNS talk as a co-constructed and negotiated interaction. Long (1981) points out that the NS tends to modify input and the interactional structure in talks with a NNS by speaking more simply in terms of grammar and vocabulary, and requesting more clarifications (than found in NS-NS talk). Long (1983) further points out in his important study of ‘negotiation of

meaning’, NSs employ various strategies to avoid conversational troubles and if that fails, use ‘tactics’ for repairing the trouble. These findings are informative for

considering possible actions which a NS could take to maintain the continuity of talk. Examples for avoidance of trouble include: giving chances for the NNS to control the

choice of topic, selecting a topic that is easy for the NNS to talk about, changing topics often, and constantly checking if the NNS is following the talk.

As for strategies to deal with breakdowns if they cannot be avoided, Long notes the following actions taken by the NS: asking for clarification, confirming comprehension, and tolerating ambiguity. Being aware of possible strategic ways to keep the talk going (through avoidance or repair) is helpful for looking at my own data. What I see Long providing (though his purpose is different) is a useful look at available moves which participants could make to maintain communication through the flow of turn- taking. Particularly relevant to my own interest is the inference that participants have strategies in reserve in case there is a communication breakdown. However, we should not forget that the questions asked in SLA are different from mine. SLA’s questions are about how to improve language learning and acquisition while mine center on finding out what participants are already doing. I am interested in knowing how talk works, not how it should work.

A shift of attention takes place in SLA after Long’s work in the early-mid 80’s as manipulation of tasks within an interaction between both NS-NNS and NNS-NNS become common. “Subsequent work has focused on the specific strategies

interlocutors employ to cope with problems of understanding. In general, more attention has been paid to the strategies used to resolve problems rather than prevent problems” (Ellis, 2003, p. 70). I see a few implications which could be drawn. First, for learners, it is only through actually using the language and making errors that they learn. Second, the actual breakdown with the ensuing repair of a conversation is observable in a way that the avoidance of breakdown or repair is not. This has

possible ramifications for how we see talk flowing. Perhaps flow is so seamless, natural, and taken for granted that the best way to see it may be when it does not flow. Third, there is an assumption (or at least hope) that participants have ways of dealing with problems. So negotiation and exchange of language and turns should display the work participants do to get the talk back on track.

A well-known illustration of dealing with misunderstanding or nonunderstanding comes from a series of analyses by Gass and Varonis (1985), Varonis and Gass (1985), and Gass (1998) where they examine an extended talk between two NNSs (one of them is Japanese). Even though the SLA interest in learners’ errors

particularly of linguistic forms prevails in these studies, I still find their transcript rich in interpretative possibilities. Their interest is in showing that negotiation of meaning is taking place in order to repair a problem. Below is an opening part of the

conversation.

(2) Varonis & Gass (1985, p. 74)

1 S1: And your what is your mmm father’s job? 2 S2: My father now is retire.

3 S1: retire? 4 S2: yes 5 S1: oh yeah.

Varonis and Gass (1985) propose a model to account for nonunderstanding in examples like the one above: Line 2 is the ‘trigger’ which causes the

misunderstanding. Line 3 is the ‘indicator’ of the misunderstanding. Line 4 is the ‘response’ to the indicator. Line 5 is the ‘reaction’ to the response. Their model frames

the talk with an opening and a closing. It also shows the relationship of turns: What happens in one turn shapes what happens next. Most importantly for my concerns, it offers a simple and logical entry into analyzing data based on what participants actually said in context.

Researchers see data in light of their assumptions and interests. Gass, Long, and similar minded SLA researchers such as Tarone (1983), Swain (1985), Pica (1988), and later Swain and Larkin (2001), analyze spoken discourse by treating interactions as language learning opportunities based on negotiation of meaning through

modification of language. Varonnis and Gass (1985) state that various examples show ‘embedded non-understanding routines’ (p. 78). In their model, the NNS speaks, but has problems due to limitations in the second language (e.g. line 2 above). They argue that line 3, ‘retire’, indicates a lack of understanding. These routines are defined as the “exchanges in which there is some overt indication that understanding between

participants has not been completed” (p. 73). While I find their work useful, mention should be made of differences in their interest in NNS talk for lack of understanding due to insufficient language and my belief in basic NNS interactional competence to carry on the talk (despite some L2 limitations).

For example, I take a different position on what occurs in the exchange above between S1 and S2. First, S2’s use of the word ‘now’ (line 2) displays an understanding of what is being asked. The question is about the father’s current job or status. While the correct form is ‘retired’, it could be argued ‘retire’ is adequate to convey the

information. The question in line 3 could be one of confirming the word (e.g., due to background noise), not an ‘overt indication’ of misunderstanding. So while SLA

research looks toward future development of the learner in terms of correct forms (which are undeniably important), my research examines how present abilities are being displayed and understood.

Finally, mention must be made of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Their relevance centers on how T-S talk is examined through transcript analysis. Close attention is paid to how one turn sets up how the next turn is taken. Participants were seen to maintain an orderly exchange of turns. The major pattern observed was a three-turn sequence called, ‘Initiation-Response-Feedback’ (IRF).

(3) Sinclair & Coulthard (1975, p. 68)

T: What makes a road slippery? S: You might have rain or snow on it. T: Yes, snow, ice.

To this day, we can still see this pattern at work in the classroom. The teacher initiates a question, and then the student gives a reply. Finally, the teacher gives some kind of follow up. Here, the answer is accepted with a partial repetition and an additional word as correction. It is helpful to see what happens on a turn-by-turn basis and how the question sets up parameters for the response. The third turn reveals how closely the first two turns have worked. Malcolm Coulthard (in a recent encounter) said though in hindsight IRF seems a simplification, the third turn remains a key indicator of how the talk will proceed.