Lineamientos de Referencia y Contra-referencia:

The preliminary results of the findings in this study overall show some similarities and differences between spoken and online text-based chats. Because the communicative platform is in CMC mode, the text-based chat data include most of the linguistic and interactional features which differ from spoken corpora and are well-described in the literature review section 2.1.2. That is to say, the employment of abbreviation, online paralinguistic, prosodic as well as action expressions, and interactional resources (e.g., hyperlinks and search engines) emerged frequently and used by both L1 and L2 speakers in this study. The use of abbreviation is a strategy to reduce time and effort (Werry, 1996) and makes online chat as fast as possible; however, it at times initiates repair requests during the talk-in-interaction (see extracts 5.4.2.1 and 5.4.2.2) in this study. Online paralinguistic, prosodic and action expressions serving as compensations for the lack of elements in face-to-face conversation are also frequently found in the data. On the other hand, the role of emoticons is used to “soften the imposition of the dispreferred action of making a request” and as a strategy “to express and intensify friendliness towards the co-participant” (Golato & Taleghani-Nikazm 2006, p. 317). Both L1 and L2 participants in this study utilize these two strategies quite often and they are revealed in the following analytic sections. As for the interactional resources, extracts in section 2.1.2.4 provide abundant examples in this study. The hyperlinks and search engines facilitate participants’ online talk-in-interaction, which is unique only in

110

online chatting phenomenon and totally different from those in face-to-face and

telephone talks due to the affordability and availability of modern technologies in online chat setting. Furthermore, new technologies have been evolving and have improved the function of addressivity to be automatically seen on the computer screen of the website. Participants’ personal profile pictures are shown at the start of their utterance (posting) (see figure 4.4.2.1, p. 95 in this study) and they can mark/tag other users’ names to summon their attention or responses. The feature of conventional addressivity in CMC (e.g., extract 2.1.1, p. 19 in this study), thus, does not emerge in this study.

With the sophisticated turn-by-turn analytic CA perspective, the findings of this study also reveal some features similar to or different from spoken data (see also section 2.1.3). First, CA methodology used in this study is evident to be feasible to analyse the online naturally occurring data (Liddicoat, 2011; Tudini, 2010) in online chat

interaction (Tudini, 2010) though transcription is not necessary for the authentic CMC data (online scripts). Second, the disrupted turn-taking or split adjacency pairs (Tudini, 2010) not only emerge in multi-party talk-in-interaction (Negretti, 1999; Simpson, 2005) but also occur in dyadic online talk-in-interaction in this study. This is concordant with Tudini’s (2010) study because of the specific online chatting environment in which participants cannot see each other. Third, the phenomenon of overlap similar to that in spoken data also takes place in online talk-in-interaction in this study, however, in a different form of online overlap. That is, the concept of overlap in online chat setting in a sense refers to the time overlap according to the same time indicators when

participants’ utterances appear on the screen in the time line after they type and send them out (e.g., extract 2.1.18, p. 30 in this study). The online overlap in this study appears to be not problematic (Jenks, 2009a) and both L1 and L2 speakers develop their own online interactional strategies (Negretti, 1999) to keep their talk-in-interaction in progress.

As found in the spoken data, the basic sequences of opening and closing are found in a great deal in this study. In a sense, both online opening and closing sequences in this study follow what Schegloff (1968, 1979) has termed summons-answer sequences. However, the opening sequence in this study is “a hybrid, mixed mode interaction in which the oral and written components are both equally relevant” (Liddicoat, 2011, p. 365). For example, the following three extracts in this study show various ways of opening sequence different from that in spoken data.

111 Extract 5.1.1.1: P7-2013-0307

1 12:51pm C: playing league? LOL

2 12:51pm E: Yes I am

you know me so well

Extract 5.1.1.2: P6-2013-0419

1 08:05 A: ~~

hey, M[name]~ are you here?

2 08:09 M: hi yes

Extract 5.1.1.3: P3-2013-0327

1 Mar 27 C: Hey

2 Mar 28 C: *poke*

3 Mar 28 O: I am sickkkkkkkkkkkkk ;(

In these three extracts, the first turns with different strategies serve as initial turns to summon the other interlocutors as Negretti (1999) argues that “there is an initial turn in which a speaker calls for his or her interlocutor’s attention, followed by a turn in which the interlocutor indicates comprehension and ability to respond sequences” (p.81). This is also similar to Schegloff’s (1968) study in relation to phone conversations in which speakers cannot see each other. In this dyadic online chatting study, the participants are not sure if the other interlocutors are online at the same time; therefore, they use various methods to call for the other participant’s attention. In extract 5.1.1.1, the L2 speaker directly assumes what the L1 speaker is doing to initiate their conversation and the L2 speaker in extract 5.1.1.2 types some symbols first and asks if the L1 speaker is present. On the other hand, extract 5.1.1.3 reveals a unique function only existing in the specific communicative platform—the poke function with which the one who is poked will receive a notification when he or she gets online in the same website and receive a notification email as well. The function facilitates participants to notify someone of the call for attention, which in turn facilitates the talk-in-interaction between geographically remote participants in this study.

With respect to closing sequences in this study, pre-closing and closing sequences are typical behaviours to close the whole conversation. Similar to Negretti’s (1999)

Webchat study, pre-closing sequence in this study functions as a solicitation for uttering farewells frequently with reasons or justifications to avoid the feeling of boredom or disinterest. This may result from the fact that the closing sequence is found more directly referring to saying goodbye by the one about to leave. On the other hand, concordant with Tudini’s (2010) findings, the phenomenon that some participants

112

abruptly end the conversation without pre-closing and closing sequences occurs to participants in this study, to those who are not familiar with each other in particular.

Another salient finding is in relation to interactional learning taking place among L1 speakers while they are chatting with L2 speakers in this study, which in turn raises new issues with regard to the conventional concept of SLA that focuses only on L2 speakers’ learning. The interactional learning by L1 speakers in this study refers to the way how they learn to adapt and interact with L2 speakers in the dyadic online talk-in-interaction. This entails learning not in terms of language but interactional learning which is unique and in a sense, can possibly and only be found through longitudinal observations in this study.

Extract 5.1.1.4: p1-2013-0323-C-N (N: L1 speaker; C: L2 speaker) 74 1:45pm C: Actually I am not quite interested in the U.K

maybe because of it's weather lol oh I see

→

75 1:45pm N: ha ha! ;) Nice! me neither!

You mean: maybe because of the weather JUST TO HELP! :)

76 1:46pm C: lol yup

Extract 5.1.1.5: p1-2013-0410-N-C (N: L1 speaker; C: L2 speaker)

20 1:22pm N: No, mid-terms is the phrase, C[name]... It is a shortened form opf midterm exams...

of...

21 1:23pm C: becuase it takes place at the end of the semester.

→ 22 1:23pm N: If you say midterm, it would mean an adjective... I am just trying to help here...

We hear this a lot in films and stuff... 23 1:24pm C: Oh, now I understand.

24 1:24pm N: During the half-semester...??? 25 1:24pm C: Thank you, N[name].

Extracts 5.1.1.4 and 5.1.1.5 exemplify one of L1 speakers’ interactional strategies in the dyadic online talk-in-interaction with L2 speakers. The same L1 speaker in these two extracts of other-initiated other-repair sequences adds statements soon after his repairs: “JUST TO HELP!” (in turn 75 of extract 5.1.1.4) and “I am just trying to help here…” (in turn 22 of extract 5.1.1.5) to mitigate face-threatening to the L2 speaker orienting to her linguistic identity. Moreover, the L2 speaker has complained to the L1 speaker for being picky and trying to teach her all the time in the online talk-in-interaction in other episodes, which in turn affects the way how the L1 speaker talks to the L2 speaker afterwards.

113

Extract 5.1.1.6: p1-2013-0322-C-N (N: L1 speaker; C: L2 speaker)

63 12:50am N: Instruments? I used to play the piano and the trumpet... You? 64 12:51am C: I play the piano and a little violin

→ 65 12:51am N: Now I am just good at blowing my own trumpet, ha ha... (it is an idiom – do you know this?)

The viola?

66 12:51am C: No I don’t know that lol

But I think I’ve heard that before

→

67 12:53am N: I see. Well, obviously there are two meanings going on. The literal one: I used to blow a trumpet and the metaphorical one, meaning I am good at selling myself to others (er, meaning that I often praise myself and so on, or mentioning my good points and boasting, as it were...)

68 12:53am C: Ok then, I really gotta go to bed...I hope your deadlines won’t kill you. Oh really

I see

The above extract 5.1.1.6 shows another strategy that the L1 speaker employs to interact with the L2 speaker. In turn 65, the L1 speaker utilizes parentheses to further explain and make sure if the L2 speaker is familiar with the idiom in his prior utterance: “blow one’s trumpet”. In the subsequent turn 67, the L1 speaker provides not only the literal meaning of the idiom but also detailed explanation with simpler wording and his intention of using that idiom in another parentheses. Again, the L1 speaker’s

interactional strategy is to modify his way of talking with the L2 participant, which in turn reveals evidence of how he learns to adapt himself to the online chatting

phenomenon with the L2 speaker.

The subsequent episodes, on the other hand, show other interactional strategies that L1 speakers employ to adapt their talk-in-interaction with L2 speakers in relation to online code-switching (CS) for various purposes such as for intersubjectivity and humour (Greggio, & Gil, 2007). Extract 5.1.1.7 shows how the L1 speaker utilizes CS to facilitate and adapt his talk to the L2 speaker for their mutual understanding (i.e. intersubjectivity), which demonstrates another example of interactional learning by L1 speakers.

Extract 5.1.1.7: p4-2013-0312-D-E (D: L1 speaker; E: L2 speaker)

9 9:33pm E: yap~

10 9:36pm D: Acai is said to have the most antioxidants than any other berry. 11 9:37pm E: Antioxidants @@?! isn't it good or bad?

→

12 9:38pm D: Antioxidants are good. Very good. 抗氧化剂

13 9:40pm E: oh, really! I thought it was not good before hahahahahaahahah

yeah~ I really thought it was not good to us before @@ 14 9:41pm D: antioxidants are things like vitamin C and Vitamin A

The CS by the L1 speaker is embedded in talk-in-interaction in turn 12 after his comment on the repairable item “Antioxidants”. The abrupt code-switching of

114

simplified Chinese (抗氧化剂) by the L1 speaker serves as an additional explanation to achieve their mutual understanding.

Extract 5.1.1.8: P4-2013-0423-D-E (D: L1 speaker; E: L2 speaker)

→ 40 10:32pm D: Hei E[name], etsit hyvin. Kuinka voit? Miten perheesi? 41 10:33pm E: Gute, danke.

hahaha

i really think language is very magical XD 42 10:34pm D: It really is.

43 10:35pm E: so you can speak a little Finnish?!

44 10:35pm D: I know how to say "Happy Birthday" and "I love you," but that's it.

45 10:36pm E: ohoh~haha

→ 46 10:37pm D: _{எமிலி ஹலலோ, நீ எப்படி இருக்கிறோய்?}

47 10:38pm E: you use google right!? xd haha 48 10:39pm D: Yep. It's Tamil.

49 10:39pm E: it is like drawing==

50 10:39pm D: Yeah, I love languages that have different writing systems. I guess that's why I've always found languages like Chinese and Russian so

fascinating.

Other code-switching employed by L1 speakers in the following extracts are involved in the issue of code-switching for humour (Greggio, & Gil, 2007). Take the participants in pair 4 for example. In extract 5.1.1.8, while talking over the language learning, the L1 speaker suggests that the L2 speaker should learn Finnish for fun and he switches to Finnish to contextualize a shift of topic (Androutsopoulos, 2013a). After that, a side sequence occurs and switches their focus to various languages’ usage. In turn 46, the L1 speaker displays a drawing-like language character (Tamil) as an interactional resource, which is apparently evidence of the strategy that the L1 speaker adopts to interact with the L2 speaker with the assistance of google translation in terms of the effect of

humour.

Extract 5.1.1.9: P1-2013-0412-C-N (C: L2 speaker; N: L1 speaker)

73 11:17pm C: I mean your traditional food ...

lol 74 11:17pm N: Raost beef

75 11:17pm C: aha

76 11:17pm N: Roast beef...

Going back how far???

The french used to call British people 'les rosbifs' 77 11:19pm C: lol

ok

Was machen Sie gern in Ihre Freizeit? hahahaha

78 11:21pm N: Lesen, spazieren, kuessen (ha ha) Mein Gott, ich bin muede! Oder schreiben!

Un du? Und du?

79 11:24pm C: Ich lese gern, treffe gern Freunde und fahre gern Fahrrad. 80 11:24pm N: ha ah ha

115

Sehr gut! ;)

81 11:25pm C: Sag mal welche Sehenswurdgikeiten gibt es in England? 82 11:25pm N: Ausgezeichnet, meine Freundin!

Keine! :( Gibt keine! 83 11:25pm C: lol

SEHR GUT! Danke lol

84 11:26pm N: Aber thatcher ist tot, das ist doch sher nett! sehr

85 11:26pm C: I don't know the meaning of this sentence~! Pleas explain lol

please

86 11:27pm N: Thatcher, do you know Thatcher? Margaret Thatcher?

Die is tot...

Extract 5.1.1.9 is an example of the participants switching their interactional code depending on their shared knowledge of another language: German as a lingua franca. While chatting on the topic of traditional food, the L1 speaker indicates what French people nickname British people in French in turn 76. The L2 speaker in turn 77 starts to chat in German which is familiar to both participants; in fact, the English L2 speaker assesses the other participant’s German and afterwards, the topic is shifted

(Androutsopoulos, 2013a). The L1 speaker then adapts himself to the L2 speaker’s code-switching and co-constructs their online talk-in-interaction in German from turn 78 to turn 84, which is another evidence of how L1 speakers learn to shape their

language choices to interact with L2 speakers in dyadic online talk-in-interaction in this study.

Extract 5.1.1.10: P1-2013-0410-N-C (N: L1 speaker; C: L2 speaker)

2 1:13pm N: hello pussy cat...

3 1:14pm C: hahaha

How are you?

→ 4 1:14pm N: miaow, n u?

5 1:14pm C: ...

errr

6 1:14pm N: ha ha

7 1:15pm C: Are you busy with deadlines? 8 1:15pm N: i am really tired, how are you?

9 1:15pm C: I am too.

→ 10 1:15pm N: tired or miaow?

ha ha

116

1:13pm N: hello pussy cat...

1:14pm C: hahaha How are you?

1:14pm N: miaow, n u?

1:14pm C: ... errr

1:14pm N: ha ha

1:15pm C: Are you busy with deadlines?

1:15pm N: i am really tired, how are you?

1:15pm C: I am too.

1:15pm N: tired or miaow? ha ha

1:15pm C: I am tired...haha

Figure 5.1.1.1 the original script (screen shot) of talk-in-interaction of extract 5.1.1.10

Extract 5.1.1.10 is another salient and unique example of code-switching for humour by the L1 speaker to adapt himself to the contextualization of their online talk-in-

interaction. After the L2 speaker in pair 1 changes her picture to an image of cat on her Facebook profile (see figure 5.1.1.1 the original script/screen shot of talk-in-interaction of extract 5.1.1.10), the L1 speaker changes his usual formulaic discourse to address the L2 speaker as “pussy cat” in turn 2. The playful address pleases the L2 speaker, which suggests that the L1 speaker successfully draws the L2 speaker’s attention to initiate the opening for talk and achieves his intention of being humorous. In turns 4 and 10, the L1 speaker switches code by mimicking cats’ sound “miaow” to respond (turn 4) and to question (turn 10).

Those findings are revealed by employing CA’s principles of moment-by-moment analysis to look at the turn-by-turn text-based written data in online dyadic chat. More

117

evidence of how participants try to achieve their mutual understanding through the repair sequences will be analysed in the following sections.